Welcome

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.

Categories

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

1356789

Comments

  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    edited August 26
    Loupi_ said:



    If you mean "style" or "build strategy" then there are several that I wish were more viable. I wont give exact builds unit by unit if thats what you're asking.

    Doesn't have to be the exact build necessarily (although that would make it easier to understand what is desired in terms of a build meta shift cause I could compare the ideal to what we have now), but the faction name and the unit breakdown would help. Something like "Chaos, Monster Lord, Caster, 5 mid tier infantry, 3 Elite cavalry, 2 low tier range" or something along those lines would be fine. It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion over an abstract idea like "more build diversity" without knowing what is captured within that.
    Loupi_ said:


    In terms of styles/strategies I would like to see a little less of max skirmish cav (incl. flying missiles)+very wide infantry builds.

    I would like it if armies whose main damage dealers varied more between range, infantry, SE and cav with the other 3 supporting the main. At the moment armies where the infantry, SE or range are the main damage unit are common but cav is more often a supporting unit.

    I think very elite focussed armies should be more viable (whether its elite cav, infantry or missiles)

    What do you mean by each of these? Are you able to formulate a build in the format I've given above?
    Loupi_ said:


    I would like to see armies that take the maximum number of single entities (5) be less common.

    CA are already nerfing SEs/SEMs in game 3 with Wounds, so will need to see how that plays out.
    Loupi_ said:


    I would like if kite armies (not abusing missile/flying missile cav or chameleon spam) were more viable. I dont necessarily mean ranged kite either, although that is common form of kiting.

    The impression I received from the loremaster of sotek interview a while back was that one of the things Domination mode/Capture points/reinforcements was partially intended to do was to eliminate kite builds as an overall strategy (although not skirmishing, that should definitely remain a part of the game). Capture points in general are the antithesis of kiting, kiting is about delaying and only taking engagements when they are maximally advantageous, whereas capture points force confrontations and engagements that might not be optimal in order to avoid a bigger loss. I struggle to see how kite builds and capture points can co-exist if capture points are to have any teeth as an in-game combat forcing mechanism, maybe I'm wrong on this though.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,683
    It shows how horrid domination mode will be if they are trying to eliminate strategies, everytime i hear something about domination it just confirms my initial assessment of it stuffing up the MP scene, gonna be fun for the 10 people that will play it.
  • hanenhanen Registered Users Posts: 681
    Im optimistic about domination mode. It puts a timer on corner camping so it seems fair that it also puts a timer on kiting as well.

    And kiting as in 3 Weightwatchers and protecc wont be heavily penalized to begin with. The scummy combat avoidance lists however will hopefully die out.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    It could work for sure, but I am not confident in CAs ability to design competitive multiplayer mode from scratch. Recent patches seems to show that competitive balancing and bug fixing is hard enough.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Totentanz777Totentanz777 Registered Users Posts: 636

    It could work for sure, but I am not confident in CAs ability to design competitive multiplayer mode from scratch. Recent patches seems to show that competitive balancing and bug fixing is hard enough.

    I initially thought domination would be a good idea but after seeing how CA has handled MP recently I agree with this now. They need to do as little as possible because they **** up every change they make for sure.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,515
    Yea cant wait, domination gonna be awesome, weeds out all the toxic worthless players full of kite, cornercamp, full cav army, nothing but time wasters. Weak bad players with no skill whatsoever. It will finally bring competitive play into the mp scene, unlike right now plague with toxic players with horrendous builds
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • ShevaTsarShevaTsar Registered Users Posts: 608
    Good things are there are always positives in life, Tanya the Evil will no longer be a thing lol.
    Welcome to Cathay - the very ancient, super-duper, hyper, fantastic, incredible, majestic, wonderful, sexy, mighty empire, the greatest of all livings.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    edited August 26
    Not a lot of understanding of how business/software development works being shown here, no company is going to invest large amounts of money/dev-time/effort doing bug-fixing on a 5 year old game when the capstone game is coming within the next 4 months and will outright replace it. Would be far more concerning if CA were doing this, would show an inability to prioritise or think long-term in the direction they are taking the game (luckily Duck and Co have shown they know how to play the long game with balancing. Even decisions I criticised heavily at the time like Rangers/Silverin Guard having 90 models have basically been shown to be absolutely fantastic choices that massively helped HE in their worst matchups and with some of their biggest issues). A hotfix is irrelevant at this point, all possible dev time should be going into making the game 3 launch the best it can possibly be.

    CA did exactly what they should have done with the last patch cycle of game 2, using it to clean up unintuitive stuff (the non-ap/ap weapon strength split on various abilities), testing out new mechanics with a few chariots to see how they play, cleaning up pricing so we don't have items/abilities costing $99.50, $174.20, $213.90 etc. Basically get the game into the best position possible for the game 3 release. And even doing all this they also released bomb new content for Dwarfs/Beastmen/Lizardmen, and now the only factions that really feel dated (to a degree) are Vampire Counts/Norsca. Bretonnia could use some tweaks, Chaos could use some stuff but both can still compete very well in most matchups.

    Also the idea CA are bad at balancing is ridiculous, if you look over the long term they have been absolutely knocking it out of the park (with a few hiccoughs here and there). Simplifying overly convoluted mechanics (poison/debuff application/stand up times based on armour values/etc), making unit interactions more enjoyable and enable more builds types.

    More factions are viable than ever, more units are viable than ever, more lores of magic are viable than ever, more playstyles are viable than ever, the bugs are frustrating but shitt happens, noone will remember once game 3 is here. If CA bring the same ambition and strong design choices to Domination mode that they have brought to the ongoing content releases and balancing done over the past few years, game 3 is going to be outstanding.

    Very bright future ahead for Total War Warhammer and excited for a first look at Domination.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 745
    As long as they keep the other modes I’m fine I just don’t want to be short on MP options still really want that 2v2v2v2 would be fun for content creators sadly idea hasn’t gained any traction but would be pretty easy to implement.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,683

    Not a lot of understanding of how business/software development works being shown here, no company is going to invest large amounts of money/dev-time/effort doing bug-fixing on a 5 year old game when the capstone game is coming within the next 4 months and will outright replace it. Would be far more concerning if CA were doing this, would show an inability to prioritise or think long-term in the direction they are taking the game (luckily Duck and Co have shown they know how to play the long game with balancing. Even decisions I criticised heavily at the time like Rangers/Silverin Guard having 90 models have basically been shown to be absolutely fantastic choices that massively helped HE in their worst matchups and with some of their biggest issues). A hotfix is irrelevant at this point, all possible dev time should be going into making the game 3 launch the best it can possibly be.

    CA did exactly what they should have done with the last patch cycle of game 2, using it to clean up unintuitive stuff (the non-ap/ap weapon strength split on various abilities), testing out new mechanics with a few chariots to see how they play, cleaning up pricing so we don't have items/abilities costing $99.50, $174.20, $213.90 etc. Basically get the game into the best position possible for the game 3 release. And even doing all this they also released bomb new content for Dwarfs/Beastmen/Lizardmen, and now the only factions that really feel dated (to a degree) are Vampire Counts/Norsca. Bretonnia could use some tweaks, Chaos could use some stuff but both can still compete very well in most matchups.

    Also the idea CA are bad at balancing is ridiculous, if you look over the long term they have been absolutely knocking it out of the park (with a few hiccoughs here and there). Simplifying overly convoluted mechanics (poison/debuff application/stand up times based on armour values/etc), making unit interactions more enjoyable and enable more builds types.

    More factions are viable than ever, more units are viable than ever, more lores of magic are viable than ever, more playstyles are viable than ever, the bugs are frustrating but shitt happens, noone will remember once game 3 is here. If CA bring the same ambition and strong design choices to Domination mode that they have brought to the ongoing content releases and balancing done over the past few years, game 3 is going to be outstanding.

    Very bright future ahead for Total War Warhammer and excited for a first look at Domination.

    Domination going to kill MP, just hope its a side mode so people can quickly brush it off asap, dont confuse my hatred for domination with capture points which i hope get implemented across all systems so long as they are done correctly.

    But you supporting current state of the game and wanting same trend to follow for game 3 makes it hard for me to continue this conversation, good luck with it i think enough people told you that they disagree with you post and it seems you want to twist in some myths about game 3 and domination along with trying to convince others that different units in same style copy and pasted is "diversity".
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959


    More factions are viable than ever, more units are viable than ever, more lores of magic are viable than ever, more playstyles are viable than ever, the bugs are frustrating but shitt happens, noone will remember once game 3 is here.

    There have been some good progress but also a lot of bad design decisions, and there I would include dumbing down poison. The chariots lack of footprint is a bug as far as I am concerned, they just broke them trying to optimize them. They introduced more new bugs when trying to fix old bugs, including breaking the interactions of entire classes of units like cavalry, chariots and monstrous infantry in one sweep. That may be more enjoyable for infantry, but certainly a worse shape of the game since they "fixed" one unit (stags) and broke hundreds. I find it impossible to be content with the current state of the game, it's currently keeping me away from the game. I can't find any motivation to play it right now until they fix it.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 750
    edited August 27
    @DaBoyzAreBackInTown I think it is possible to be both:

    1) appreciative of the unparalleled achievement of attaining decent and dynamic balance accross a huge number of very assymetric factions ( for a multiplayer scene that brings great media content to the game but not the initial focus of purchasers). Few games can claim such achievement, particularly without any prior competitive multiplayer focus. This is not told enough and I hope developers still know that aside from the complaints.

    2) be sad that the way the DLCs are handled undermines such a huge achievement. Current bugs are not small in that regard, they kind of stall the entire multiplayer scene when it should be building up the hype for game 3. It is fine to test new stuff in game 2 and risk a worse balance, but to experiment new mechanics. You don't need to involve an entire community, including content creators who make a living off that, only to discover major bugs after one day but keep the fix for game 3. I mean I complain about cavalry as much as others but it's still playable, meanwhile you just can't make good tournaments with 3-4 free magic missiles in a row...
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    @ThibixMagnus absolutely true, but if you have read the comments and the complaints being made they have nothing to do with the magic missile bug, do they?

    Even the most recent comment just above yours makes no mention of it and instead makes an extremely dubious claim to "hundreds of units being broken" while avoiding any discussion of the traditional metrics of pickrates and damage value to measure unit performance. The "major balance issue" in the current patch is that the same standards now apply to cav/chariots that have applied to other unit types for years now. Namely that low tier cheap = high pick rates, mid tier medium price = middling pick rates, high tier expensive = relatively low pickrates. (There are some extra details that complicate the picture, mainly the SE/SEM problem of no decline in powerlevel as damage is taken, but CA are already addressing that in game 3 with wounds.)

    So sure, if the complaints are about bugs such as the magic missile bug then I would buy that as an explanation and agree it is legitimate to be frustrated with bugs. I do still think it is preferable in general to have all hands on deck developing game 3 as the hype will come in heavy and hard as soon as Daemons and Cathay content is shown, as well as other game 3 content with a MP focus (Domination, ladder system, etc).

    But the complaints about balance have been focused around the number of unit cards, and let's be real here and admit the low unit card builds being remembered aren't for elite infantry + high tier static range, it is for the high tier mobile range + high tier mobile melee based around cycle charging that was the overpowered and dominant pick at the intermediate/high level for most of this game's life cycle. I'm not sure how long you've been in the forum or if you play under a different name so apologies if I'm telling you something you already know, but many of the players arguing for the importance of low unit card count for build diversity or the need for more elite focused builds have over the years argued explicitly AGAINST buffs to elite infantry on the grounds that it would lead to a low skill meta or similar sentiments. So for these now to be held up as an important balancing metric is a bit rich when they were never considered important previously.

    Which is why I keep saying:

    1. Interactions aren't a goal in and of themselves, they are a tool to achieve another goal.
    2. The same metrics should be applied to ALL units in determining balance (within reason). Traditionally these are pick rates, kills, damage value so if a class of units allegedly needs buffs and performs well on these metrics there should be a good reason for this divergence in the standard units are held to achieve balance.
    3. Where this game badly needs more strategy/tactics/dynamic decision-making is once the game has started. Currently most strategy is front-loaded at pick screen, a little bit in deployment, and then a sliver once the game has started and the outcome comes down to micro. Which is one of the major reasons I am optimistic about Domination mode as I believe it will more directly address the problem this game has (imo) of 21st century rosters being executed in 20th century gameplay.

    And to clarify on a point, I'm not against buffs to cav or chariots categorically. CA also need to cater to the many campaign players as well as their own internal vision for the game so I can't determine if there are other important considerations they have beyond what I mentioned on point 2 for balancing units. (Although I will note that the Cavalry/infantry interaction appears to have been a complete non-event for campaign players.) And as with all unit types there are almost certainly some units in the cavalry/chariot class which need buffs.

    But I also can't help but notice that there has been a lot of talk of the need for "more build diversity" but other than yourself I have yet to actually see any concrete suggestion for what one of these missing builds should look like. And I am naturally suspicious any time an abstract poorly-defined sweeping request is asked for, but as soon as you try and get specifics you can't get a straight answer. Because once something is concrete it can be properly analysed, so if that discussion is (seemingly) trying to be avoided then it seems prudent to find out why.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,515
    War 2 is nothing but a beta and a test bed for whatver they wanna do with war 3. Old abilities r still above $200 while the new ones r all standardised at 150, 200s.

    Its funny ppl doesnt seem to realise theres like at least 10 more factions to come into the game, we r barely 60% in
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 750

    @ThibixMagnus absolutely true, but if you have read the comments and the complaints being made they have nothing to do with the magic missile bug, do they?

    Even the most recent comment just above yours makes no mention of it and instead makes an extremely dubious claim to "hundreds of units being broken" while avoiding any discussion of the traditional metrics of pickrates and damage value to measure unit performance. The "major balance issue" in the current patch is that the same standards now apply to cav/chariots that have applied to other unit types for years now. Namely that low tier cheap = high pick rates, mid tier medium price = middling pick rates, high tier expensive = relatively low pickrates. (There are some extra details that complicate the picture, mainly the SE/SEM problem of no decline in powerlevel as damage is taken, but CA are already addressing that in game 3 with wounds.)

    So sure, if the complaints are about bugs such as the magic missile bug then I would buy that as an explanation and agree it is legitimate to be frustrated with bugs. I do still think it is preferable in general to have all hands on deck developing game 3 as the hype will come in heavy and hard as soon as Daemons and Cathay content is shown, as well as other game 3 content with a MP focus (Domination, ladder system, etc).

    But the complaints about balance have been focused around the number of unit cards, and let's be real here and admit the low unit card builds being remembered aren't for elite infantry + high tier static range, it is for the high tier mobile range + high tier mobile melee based around cycle charging that was the overpowered and dominant pick at the intermediate/high level for most of this game's life cycle. I'm not sure how long you've been in the forum or if you play under a different name so apologies if I'm telling you something you already know, but many of the players arguing for the importance of low unit card count for build diversity or the need for more elite focused builds have over the years argued explicitly AGAINST buffs to elite infantry on the grounds that it would lead to a low skill meta or similar sentiments. So for these now to be held up as an important balancing metric is a bit rich when they were never considered important previously.

    Which is why I keep saying:

    1. Interactions aren't a goal in and of themselves, they are a tool to achieve another goal.
    2. The same metrics should be applied to ALL units in determining balance (within reason). Traditionally these are pick rates, kills, damage value so if a class of units allegedly needs buffs and performs well on these metrics there should be a good reason for this divergence in the standard units are held to achieve balance.
    3. Where this game badly needs more strategy/tactics/dynamic decision-making is once the game has started. Currently most strategy is front-loaded at pick screen, a little bit in deployment, and then a sliver once the game has started and the outcome comes down to micro. Which is one of the major reasons I am optimistic about Domination mode as I believe it will more directly address the problem this game has (imo) of 21st century rosters being executed in 20th century gameplay.

    And to clarify on a point, I'm not against buffs to cav or chariots categorically. CA also need to cater to the many campaign players as well as their own internal vision for the game so I can't determine if there are other important considerations they have beyond what I mentioned on point 2 for balancing units. (Although I will note that the Cavalry/infantry interaction appears to have been a complete non-event for campaign players.) And as with all unit types there are almost certainly some units in the cavalry/chariot class which need buffs.

    But I also can't help but notice that there has been a lot of talk of the need for "more build diversity" but other than yourself I have yet to actually see any concrete suggestion for what one of these missing builds should look like. And I am naturally suspicious any time an abstract poorly-defined sweeping request is asked for, but as soon as you try and get specifics you can't get a straight answer. Because once something is concrete it can be properly analysed, so if that discussion is (seemingly) trying to be avoided then it seems prudent to find out why.

    I was just responding to your post where you said no one understands business etc :) I don't claim to do but I wanted to offer some pushback on the fact that it was fine to test some new "mechanics" which I kind of feel would not have drained too much effort from game 3 if they had just been internally tested a bit, say 1 day. I also suppose that CA is not a monolithic actor with a single consistent plan, but a mix of developpers and dark suits with different priorities.

    Now just to answer to part of your post (not all, not cherrypicking, just lack of time rn) yeah I've been around for a while, just never enough to commit to git gud. I didn't know about an elite infantry meltdown. I know some people here defend kite builds (which is fine), and elite infantry is not really an issue for those to face...

    beyond that I just need to assume that we are all biased but most people still want the game to be balanced, it's a leap of faith but otherwise there is little point typing here.

    Like, many of those who want kite builds to be more viable also want the inability of cavalry to charge skirmishers to be fixed. Which is probably the most dangerous thing that could happen to kite builds. But it's an acceptable punishment for micro slip. So in the end "kite" people defend the benefit of high micro, which good kiting requires in droves. And I don't fully agree with that, I think charging should be more commitment than getting out after 3 secs and arrows should be less dodgeable, but I understand that position. It is a matter of situation reading (derided as turn based in these forums) vs execution (derided as clickfest in these forums).

    Also I'm not sure I follow where you say the game is in a good spot but mostly won at army selection? Unless you think the army selection wins were even worse before ofc. And I would think, intuitively, that defending kite builds or more generally a high micro game goes against army-selection wins?
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044

    @ThibixMagnus absolutely true, but if you have read the comments and the complaints being made they have nothing to do with the magic missile bug, do they?

    Even the most recent comment just above yours makes no mention of it and instead makes an extremely dubious claim to "hundreds of units being broken" while avoiding any discussion of the traditional metrics of pickrates and damage value to measure unit performance. The "major balance issue" in the current patch is that the same standards now apply to cav/chariots that have applied to other unit types for years now. Namely that low tier cheap = high pick rates, mid tier medium price = middling pick rates, high tier expensive = relatively low pickrates. (There are some extra details that complicate the picture, mainly the SE/SEM problem of no decline in powerlevel as damage is taken, but CA are already addressing that in game 3 with wounds.)

    So sure, if the complaints are about bugs such as the magic missile bug then I would buy that as an explanation and agree it is legitimate to be frustrated with bugs. I do still think it is preferable in general to have all hands on deck developing game 3 as the hype will come in heavy and hard as soon as Daemons and Cathay content is shown, as well as other game 3 content with a MP focus (Domination, ladder system, etc).

    But the complaints about balance have been focused around the number of unit cards, and let's be real here and admit the low unit card builds being remembered aren't for elite infantry + high tier static range, it is for the high tier mobile range + high tier mobile melee based around cycle charging that was the overpowered and dominant pick at the intermediate/high level for most of this game's life cycle. I'm not sure how long you've been in the forum or if you play under a different name so apologies if I'm telling you something you already know, but many of the players arguing for the importance of low unit card count for build diversity or the need for more elite focused builds have over the years argued explicitly AGAINST buffs to elite infantry on the grounds that it would lead to a low skill meta or similar sentiments. So for these now to be held up as an important balancing metric is a bit rich when they were never considered important previously.

    Which is why I keep saying:

    1. Interactions aren't a goal in and of themselves, they are a tool to achieve another goal.
    2. The same metrics should be applied to ALL units in determining balance (within reason). Traditionally these are pick rates, kills, damage value so if a class of units allegedly needs buffs and performs well on these metrics there should be a good reason for this divergence in the standard units are held to achieve balance.
    3. Where this game badly needs more strategy/tactics/dynamic decision-making is once the game has started. Currently most strategy is front-loaded at pick screen, a little bit in deployment, and then a sliver once the game has started and the outcome comes down to micro. Which is one of the major reasons I am optimistic about Domination mode as I believe it will more directly address the problem this game has (imo) of 21st century rosters being executed in 20th century gameplay.

    And to clarify on a point, I'm not against buffs to cav or chariots categorically. CA also need to cater to the many campaign players as well as their own internal vision for the game so I can't determine if there are other important considerations they have beyond what I mentioned on point 2 for balancing units. (Although I will note that the Cavalry/infantry interaction appears to have been a complete non-event for campaign players.) And as with all unit types there are almost certainly some units in the cavalry/chariot class which need buffs.

    But I also can't help but notice that there has been a lot of talk of the need for "more build diversity" but other than yourself I have yet to actually see any concrete suggestion for what one of these missing builds should look like. And I am naturally suspicious any time an abstract poorly-defined sweeping request is asked for, but as soon as you try and get specifics you can't get a straight answer. Because once something is concrete it can be properly analysed, so if that discussion is (seemingly) trying to be avoided then it seems prudent to find out why.

    I was just responding to your post where you said no one understands business etc :) I don't claim to do but I wanted to offer some pushback on the fact that it was fine to test some new "mechanics" which I kind of feel would not have drained too much effort from game 3 if they had just been internally tested a bit, say 1 day. I also suppose that CA is not a monolithic actor with a single consistent plan, but a mix of developpers and dark suits with different priorities.

    Now just to answer to part of your post (not all, not cherrypicking, just lack of time rn) yeah I've been around for a while, just never enough to commit to git gud. I didn't know about an elite infantry meltdown. I know some people here defend kite builds (which is fine), and elite infantry is not really an issue for those to face...

    beyond that I just need to assume that we are all biased but most people still want the game to be balanced, it's a leap of faith but otherwise there is little point typing here.

    Like, many of those who want kite builds to be more viable also want the inability of cavalry to charge skirmishers to be fixed. Which is probably the most dangerous thing that could happen to kite builds. But it's an acceptable punishment for micro slip. So in the end "kite" people defend the benefit of high micro, which good kiting requires in droves. And I don't fully agree with that, I think charging should be more commitment than getting out after 3 secs and arrows should be less dodgeable, but I understand that position. It is a matter of situation reading (derided as turn based in these forums) vs execution (derided as clickfest in these forums).
    The comment on business was more because some of these requests for a hotfix seem to be ignoring the context of Game 3 being released within the next 4 months or so. And as for keeping the fix for game 3, this really goes back to not being familiar with how software environments operate. CA clearly have a skeleton team on game 2 at this point, so who is to say any hotfix won't just introduce more and worse bugs? At a certain point if we get a hotfix, great, but otherwise we know when the next game is coming anyway.

    It should be no surprise at this point that MP concerns have relatively little weight in the current game, largely due to low player numbers which have difficulties growing for a number of reason. And when you look at the passion of the playerbase, the excellent coverage by content creators, the efforts in general put in by the community to help it grow, the fact the growth has been so abyssmal (considering overall sales numbers of TWW and DLC) that is why I personally would much prefer all efforts put into turning game 3 into a game with some serious multiplayer heft, rather than fix what are realistically quite minor bugs (in the grand scheme of things). I mean Age of Empires 2, a 20 year old game has a bigger multiplayer scene than this game. If that doesn't indicate how serious some of the issues are with MP in this game, then I don't know what does. I would much much prefer for game 3 to have a MP scene and playerbase 5x/10x/20x/50x/100x its current size than have minor bug fixes for a game noone will ever touch again by the end of the year when game 3 is out.

    As for the rest, I am all for more micro in this game so long as it is more micro for the right reasons. And being able to control your army better than your opponent SHOULD be an advantage and help you win matches. But more micro just because isn't a good thing, if it were we could easily increase micro requirements by doing things like removing skirmish mode, removing fire at will, removing control groups, eliminate all sorts of hotkeys etc. Something like SC2 I would never call a clickfest because even though at the high levels the micro requirements are huge, that micro is basically all used to make lots of decisions around exploring the map, basebuilding, taking engagements etc.

    Not sure what you mean about the game being turn-based, I don't think I have seen anyone anywhere request that you can pause the game or it becomes a turn-based game. Haven't seen anything from CA proposing this either, so I might just be out of the loop here.

    On the elite infantry point, you are forgetting the context when those discussion occurred. At the time, the bug fix around infantry knockdown was a long way from being fixed and so elite infantry was unusable at higher levels of play. Kiting builds & large completely dictated the meta, and when requests were made to buff elite infantry to be usable they were shot down as leading to poor gameplay as the scale of buffs required would make all other builds non-viable and have a detrimental effect on gameplay. And I agree with that overall assessment of balance at the time and it is certainly better that we got the fix we ended up getting. But that is why I don't take seriously concerns about "build diversity being reflected in the number of unit cards". Where was this concern for "card number based build diversity" or "elite focused builds" when players wanted to bring 4 Chosen GW, 4 Har Ganeth Executioners, 4 Swordmasters, etc? So while I do agree you always need to try and assume others are making their arguments in good faith, the contrast between the lack of concern for elite focused infantry builds over years with the concern for elite focused builds now does make me a bit skeptical. Especially when there still haven't been any concrete examples of the builds needed to "recreate build diversity" in this game.


    Also I'm not sure I follow where you say the game is in a good spot but mostly won at army selection? Unless you think the army selection wins were even worse before ofc.

    The game is in a good spot in regards to what can be reasonably expected of it knowing the significant gameplay changes coming with Domination. All my analysis of current balance is informed by the understanding that Domination mode is coming in game 3 and will be THE primary mode for QB. If I am incorrect in this assumption, then the rest of my analysis of current balance falls apart completely.

    I also never said the game was won at army selection. Good execution of your build is a necessity if you want to win. What I said was Currently most strategy is front-loaded at pick screen, a little bit in deployment, and then a sliver once the game has started and the outcome comes down to micro.. And this is true. Once you actually click the start button in game, the gameplay is actually very formulaic and can almost be broken down into a formula with steps like:

    - The player with the ranged disadvantage (be it skirmishers or artillery) must advance.
    - The player with the faster units determines when and where engagements occur. A slower unit can never force an engagement on their own terms.
    - etc etc

    For a more concrete example, currently if we are playing and I have the artillery (more specifically the long-range) advantage, your only option is to advance. Sure you can set up a surround, or try disrupt my artillery with a fast mover etc, but all your options involve you moving towards my artillery. Whereas in a hypothetical domination mode, your options would be:

    1. Advance towards enemy
    2. Advance towards capture points
    3. Reinforce with artillery and counterfire (Although obviously I have no idea how reinforcements will work specifically so you may not be able to reinforce immediately, but you see my point for arguments sake)

    These are actual strategic options available to you on the battlefield. Whereas currently if you don't bring the tools to give you the options at pick screen, you can't dynamically respond to what your opponent brought through either changing your tactics (going for capture points as opposed to attacking enemy) or introducing new variables to the battlefield your opponent needs to respond to (reinforce with X unit).

    So when I say "the game is in a good spot" I mean "the parts of the game we are keeping into game 3, namely the army rosters/overall faction balance/unit interaction are in a good spot and don't require significant changes". There are the normal balancing issues of some factions are up and some are down, some units need tweaks etc but assessing balance without the context of game 3's release doesn't make sense in my opinion. (Even though of course in a perfect world it would be better if there were no bugs)


    And I would think, intuitively, that defending kite builds or more generally a high micro game goes against army-selection wins?

    I think there is bit of a misconception here. I have 0 issue with skirmishing/hit&run tactics at all nor do I have an issue with high micro requirements especially at top-level play (and I say this as someone who is at best a top 500 player).

    For lots of factions those are the bread and butter of their playstyle and lore (Beastmen/Wood Elves/Crooked Moon/Clan Eshin/Nagarythe/Ghosts of Pahuax/The Huntmarshall's Expedition) and should remain an important part of their playstyle. My issue with kite builds is the exact same issue I have with artillery box builds as they both take advantage of the same poor gameplay design in the current game. And that gameplay design is There is currently never a reason to take any melee engagement until every bit of your ammunition/offensive magic/ranged abilities has been used.

    What this does is that it creates a situation where it is the player at pickscreen who determines who advances in-game and who kites/boxes. And that is why it isn't uncommon to see stuff like 1 player taking 3 cannons, the other player taking 2, both players based their whole strategy on the other player being forced to advance and so it is highly unlikely the player taking 2 cannons will win. Or if you think that assessment is overly strong, at the very least they are put in a disadvantageous position immediately once the game has started. The same applies to kite builds currently, 1 player takes a combination of mobile range + mobility, the other player takes less of these tools and so assuming equal micro the player who brought less will have their ability to counter their opponent's mobility removed and be forced to play the match out at a disadvantage and most likely lose (clever deployment can mitigate these disadvantages to an extent but this also occurs prior to the match starting).

    This is what I mean by "army selection wins". The possibility for comebacks if you pick wrong are too low and due to how complex rosters in the game are, it can often require hundreds or thousands of hours of play to know how/why you need to build certain matchups in certain ways, and even with this experience build roulette isn't uncommon at intermediate/high levels. Kiting/full mobility was the most prominent style of build that benefitted from this situation throughout the game lifestyle but by no means the only one. SEM Blobs were also a big issue for a long time.

    Whereas if we were to go back to the examples I gave earlier, lets say we start a match and I bring 3 cannons and you bring 2. In a domination style mode, you can change your strategy from "shoot and wait for advance" to "push onto capture points". Your opponent will see this and then they are faced with a choice:

    1. Continue shooting to maximise ranged damage
    2. Push forrward as well to contest all points you are approaching
    3. Leave artillery + a small force to defend, push all melee forces to one capture point and bombard other point with artilley.

    etc etc. These are actual strategic and tactical decisions that are interesting and worth changing the game for. Whereas imo adding in "strategy" by recreating small unitcard count full mobility + ranged builds isn't adding in strategy at all, it is prioritising clickspeed over strategy. Especially when the proposed way of reintroducing these types of builds is the exact method that invalidated large numbers of builds for most of the games lifecycle.

    TL;DR: Kiting (skirmishing/hit and run tactics) in the right context is awesome and for lots of factions very thematic, in the wrong context is terrible gameplay (ditto for boxing). Domination if done well will be the right context so if kiting is still underperforming in Domination mode, I would 100% support sensible buffs to enable it. Unit card counts are a poor metric for measuring build diversity and shouldn't be focused on as a balancing goal.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    On reflection it is fair for players to be more upset about bugs than I am, not sure why I tried to argue against that. Bugs do worsen the overall experience so suck to have for the final patch of game 2. So I was wrong on that even if I would prefer getting game 3 right be the priority.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    Regarding build diversity everything is an equilibrium between lots of factors, both game performance wise, mind games and psychological factors. The two latter adds some inertia to the meta in terms if pick rates, so regardless how you try to quantify build diversity it will probably be pretty hard to dissect out the contribution from the state of the game only.

    The game state is in turn also several equilibria between different play styles and different unit classes. Right now most would agree that we have a meta that is very wide, which means as much hp as possible on the board, and with so much hp in combination with the disruptive high mass counters to wide builds with little mass (chariots, heavy cav) being weak, you end up with wider ranged as well to have sufficient damage potential.

    So in order to improve build diversity, which I would prefer to rebrand as tactical diversity, we would need to tune these equilibria. Ranged units are as strong as the time they can be kept online, and the power level of chariots, cavalry, light cav, artillery, elite infantry/anti-infantry, monsters and monstrous infantry all contribute to that equilibrium. All these tidbits together dictates how efficient different tactics are, and right now I'd say that wide build meta definitely benefits from cav, chariots, monstrous infantry and monsters being weaker than they have ever been in warhammer total war.

    Fixing the stag-fix problems will be a step in the right direction here, in every aspect of gameplay. It will make interactions with these units more balanced, it will relatively speaking make blobbing less powerful (charge damage spike now hurts 1v1 engagements but blobbing still works), and it will make the engine more situationally aware. Landing a highly disruptive attack will disrupt return damage as we're intuitively used to expect.

    When it comes to micro/execution it depends on what the goal for the game is. If the goal is to make twwh a competitive esports like game, then execution needs to be rewarded. The skill ceiling must be high, otherwise its not very sensitive to skill. I know this is not a popular opinion here, but if you really want to make this game competitive, then more average players like the vast majority of us are, will be losing more often to the best players. That's why I think unit types and tactics in the spirit is sigvald is bad for the game. Why? Diversity is a good thing and many tactics should be viable etc, but my point is that unit types that require very little skill shouldn't be so high tier/dominant when it comes to shape the outcome of a competitive match. Xiphos (picking a random top player while he was still playing) would get waaay more value out of Waywatchers vs bret than I could because he is a better player, but we would get about the same value out of sigvald end games because anyone can execute sigvald....

    I know, unpopular opinion, but if the goal is to make twwh a competitive and entertaining esports game, then there will likely be a higher focus on execution skills. It's entertaining to see good players play bad builds well but it's not much entertainment in seeing a bad player win with a very good but low skill requirement build grinding it out successfully while being outplayed by not outplayed enough....
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044



    When it comes to micro/execution it depends on what the goal for the game is. If the goal is to make twwh a competitive esports like game, then execution needs to be rewarded. The skill ceiling must be high, otherwise its not very sensitive to skill. I know this is not a popular opinion here, but if you really want to make this game competitive, then more average players like the vast majority of us are, will be losing more often to the best players. That's why I think unit types and tactics in the spirit is sigvald is bad for the game. Why? Diversity is a good thing and many tactics should be viable etc, but my point is that unit types that require very little skill shouldn't be so high tier/dominant when it comes to shape the outcome of a competitive match. Xiphos (picking a random top player while he was still playing) would get waaay more value out of Waywatchers vs bret than I could because he is a better player, but we would get about the same value out of sigvald end games because anyone can execute sigvald....

    I know, unpopular opinion, but if the goal is to make twwh a competitive and entertaining esports game, then there will likely be a higher focus on execution skills. It's entertaining to see good players play bad builds well but it's not much entertainment in seeing a bad player win with a very good but low skill requirement build grinding it out successfully while being outplayed by not outplayed enough....

    I'm not sure how this could be an unpopular opinion, it is about the absolute broadest point that applies to any and all sport/esport of any type.

    Execution in all sport determines who wins at the highest level, try winning in the NBA at the moment if you can't execute on 3 pointers, or boxing if you can't either hit more than you get hit or knock people out, or soccer if you can't score goals or block them, etc etc.

    The whole discussion here is around what exactly should be the areas where players need to excel in order to be a top-tier player. To use the basketball analogy again, it isn't a coincidence that NBA players are often at least 1 standard deviation or more in height above the average population. That trait contributes to their ability to execute the skillset needed to perform well in the top levels of the NBA.

    This makes your read on Sigvald quite incorrect as well, sure in the current gameplay where you have to kill/rout Sigvald to end a match he is a relatively low skill unit but add capture points into the mix and that changes completely. Suddenly you need to make sure you are getting value with Sigvald throughout the game as well as you can't rely on an endgame grind to recoup his value. He needs to be in the right place at the right time, be that killing stuff, blocking points being captured, taking points etc. Sigvald could very easily end up as a higher skill unit than Waywatchers in a domination style game mode.

    TL;DR: You can't analyse which types of units are high skill in a vacuum, if the win condition for Domination turns out to be shooting a hot air balloon out of the air then Waywatchers will be a much lower skill unit than Sigvald as a slightly absurd example.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    edited August 28

    which is why it's such a good thing that they've made chariots and cavalry require higher skill to use well. Infantry too, now that you have to pay more attention to the charging mechanics with them and there's payoff for doing so. They need to change the balance of that interaction, but the game is nicely moving towards a higher skill design.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    You know very well and we've established it - I want cav to be rebalanced to be stronger. They're too weak right now for their price and they have an unfortunate balance in the charge interaction.

    You want to use that as an opportunity to make cavalry lower skill units. Seems like a shame but I understand people get attached to a certain easy play style.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    eumaies said:

    You know very well and we've established it - I want cav to be rebalanced to be stronger. They're too weak right now for their price and they have an unfortunate balance in the charge interaction.

    You want to use that as an opportunity to make cavalry lower skill units. Seems like a shame but I understand people get attached to a certain easy play style.

    Haha your idea is what I want is hilariously warped.... I just want cavalry restored to what they were before they had their interaction with infantry accidentally broken. Does that make them require skill because they got accidentally nerfed vs infantry? Or did it just make them worse units? You're the one who wants to take this opportunity to not fix knockbacks not affecting combat outcome like it has always done.

    The skill requirement of cav and inf is similarly changed. If cav requires more skill because you have to flee from 500g marauders, then the marauders now also requires less skill because they can now overextend safely. There's the bias right there if you think infantry requires more skill now.

    Cavalry is actually balanced if they just repair disruption so that it again affects combat.

    I also repeated my test for singe entities, I can't see the same hit reg when you're being knocked back so fixing cavalry should not have any negative impact on foot characters. I don't know how you tested it if you did, I tested foot nobles (bvl) who only has 40% knock ignore chance vs a single entity chariot (lowish md) and he got knocked back 3 or 4 times in a row without scoring a melee hit even though he started his animation, in both 1.10.2 and 1.12.0. Maybe other char with faster animation and or 80 ignore chance hits but if he does he would most likely also have hit in 1.10.2. At least foot nobles behave exactly the same in both my test.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356

    eumaies said:

    You know very well and we've established it - I want cav to be rebalanced to be stronger. They're too weak right now for their price and they have an unfortunate balance in the charge interaction.

    You want to use that as an opportunity to make cavalry lower skill units. Seems like a shame but I understand people get attached to a certain easy play style.

    Haha your idea is what I want is hilariously warped.... I just want cavalry restored to what they were before they had their interaction with infantry accidentally broken. Does that make them require skill because they got accidentally nerfed vs infantry? Or did it just make them worse units? You're the one who wants to take this opportunity to not fix knockbacks not affecting combat outcome like it has always done.

    The skill requirement of cav and inf is similarly changed. If cav requires more skill because you have to flee from 500g marauders, then the marauders now also requires less skill because they can now overextend safely. There's the bias right there if you think infantry requires more skill now.

    Cavalry is actually balanced if they just repair disruption so that it again affects combat.

    I also repeated my test for singe entities, I can't see the same hit reg when you're being knocked back so fixing cavalry should not have any negative impact on foot characters. I don't know how you tested it if you did, I tested foot nobles (bvl) who only has 40% knock ignore chance vs a single entity chariot (lowish md) and he got knocked back 3 or 4 times in a row without scoring a melee hit even though he started his animation, in both 1.10.2 and 1.12.0. Maybe other char with faster animation and or 80 ignore chance hits but if he does he would most likely also have hit in 1.10.2. At least foot nobles behave exactly the same in both my test.
    We really disagree on just one thing. You want cavalry to not have to worry about charging into counter-charging enemies (as opposed to using tactics) by giving them a knockback advantage. It's a perfect example of a low skill game design.

    I've endorsed lotus's trample idea and associated balancing approaches that maintain a high skill dynamic where you take into consideration how the enemy is playing but where cav trade more reasonably even when they do take a less advantageous approach.

    TBD on the foot character discussion.

  • Totentanz777Totentanz777 Registered Users Posts: 636
    eumaies said:


    which is why it's such a good thing that they've made chariots and cavalry require higher skill to use well. Infantry too, now that you have to pay more attention to the charging mechanics with them and there's payoff for doing so. They need to change the balance of that interaction, but the game is nicely moving towards a higher skill design.

    Weird how losing 2-3 cav models on every single charge guaranteed is a "high skill" interaction. Also an infantry with a decent charge bonus can outtrade f7cking cavalry on the charge lol. Yes very high skill indeed, that makes sense.

    Chariots too. Yes very high skill. Tuskgors killing blood knights and cold one chariots barely doing any damage at all. Really great for build diversity.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:

    You know very well and we've established it - I want cav to be rebalanced to be stronger. They're too weak right now for their price and they have an unfortunate balance in the charge interaction.

    You want to use that as an opportunity to make cavalry lower skill units. Seems like a shame but I understand people get attached to a certain easy play style.

    Haha your idea is what I want is hilariously warped.... I just want cavalry restored to what they were before they had their interaction with infantry accidentally broken. Does that make them require skill because they got accidentally nerfed vs infantry? Or did it just make them worse units? You're the one who wants to take this opportunity to not fix knockbacks not affecting combat outcome like it has always done.

    The skill requirement of cav and inf is similarly changed. If cav requires more skill because you have to flee from 500g marauders, then the marauders now also requires less skill because they can now overextend safely. There's the bias right there if you think infantry requires more skill now.

    Cavalry is actually balanced if they just repair disruption so that it again affects combat.

    I also repeated my test for singe entities, I can't see the same hit reg when you're being knocked back so fixing cavalry should not have any negative impact on foot characters. I don't know how you tested it if you did, I tested foot nobles (bvl) who only has 40% knock ignore chance vs a single entity chariot (lowish md) and he got knocked back 3 or 4 times in a row without scoring a melee hit even though he started his animation, in both 1.10.2 and 1.12.0. Maybe other char with faster animation and or 80 ignore chance hits but if he does he would most likely also have hit in 1.10.2. At least foot nobles behave exactly the same in both my test.
    We really disagree on just one thing. You want cavalry to not have to worry about charging into counter-charging enemies (as opposed to using tactics) by giving them a knockback advantage. It's a perfect example of a low skill game design.

    I've endorsed lotus's trample idea and associated balancing approaches that maintain a high skill dynamic where you take into consideration how the enemy is playing but where cav trade more reasonably even when they do take a less advantageous approach.

    TBD on the foot character discussion.

    The thing is that in 1.10.2 you could not countercharge gw infantry without taking damage, you took half as much damage as now and half of twice too much is very nicely balanced! In terms of value you trade evenly before stags, now you trade down severely, more than 2:1....

    So knockdown never kept you safe from return damage, it must made you take half of it, while a clean infantry charge still made full damage. What I want the most is for the engine to recognise this difference. Reward you when you set up a clean charge, but mitigate a good chunk of return damage if the infantry get hit by a lance charge while they charge.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356

    eumaies said:


    which is why it's such a good thing that they've made chariots and cavalry require higher skill to use well. Infantry too, now that you have to pay more attention to the charging mechanics with them and there's payoff for doing so. They need to change the balance of that interaction, but the game is nicely moving towards a higher skill design.

    Weird how losing 2-3 cav models on every single charge guaranteed is a "high skill" interaction. Also an infantry with a decent charge bonus can outtrade f7cking cavalry on the charge lol. Yes very high skill indeed, that makes sense.

    Chariots too. Yes very high skill. Tuskgors killing blood knights and cold one chariots barely doing any damage at all. Really great for build diversity.
    I agree with your snark, which is why I've described the rebalancing that would improve that.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    Lotus' trample idea would give cav the ability to trample stuff a bit better. problem solved. no need for knockdown immunities which will suck in the end game.

    And re: SEs, here is felix getting his hit in while also being knocked flat on his ass. As it should be; everybody gets a roll in a mutual charge, even if some units are better at it than others.

    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2587413166
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    eumaies said:

    Lotus' trample idea would give cav the ability to trample stuff a bit better. problem solved. no need for knockdown immunities which will suck in the end game.

    And re: SEs, here is felix getting his hit in while also being knocked flat on his ass. As it should be; everybody gets a roll in a mutual charge, even if some units are better at it than others.

    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2587413166

    Which problem would trampling solve? You like to see it as knockdown immunity (which is not true since infantry deal damage still, even when hurt as I have shown in 1.10.2) , while it is just as much hit guarantee now. Which makes most sense? Not getting hit back if you knock someone over with a lance first, or dealing retrospective damage after you have been thrown off your feet? You know, in 1.10.2 the one who hits first gets his hit in.

    Did felix deal the hit before or after he was knocked back? If he scored the hit before it would register in 1.10.2 too. Did you test the same replay in 1.12.0?

    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    There is no distinction in before or after. He scored the hit the same time as the stegadon of course because that’s how hit rolls do and should work.

    The reason you’re fighting so hard for knockdown immunity is because it obviously does matter. Full strength inf unit not everyone gets knocked over so some still land hits at first. But late game they all get knocked over and the infantry have zero end game presence. Which I can only assume is your goal.

    Trample on the other hand keeps hits rolling for both sides on the charge and simply reduces how good inf are at dealing damage whenever they countercharge cav.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,515

    Not getting hit back if you knock someone over with a lance first, or dealing retrospective damage after you have been thrown off your feet? You know, in 1.10.2 the one who hits first gets his hit in.

    Lulz still trying to sell free hits.

    Sad, aint gonna work, fun to watch tho
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
Sign In or Register to comment.