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?

1234568

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,051
    it was an unintended bug fix but these folks have inside information that CA designers view it as an "unbalanced/unintended balance on the charges" or something to that effect.

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    eumaies said:


    since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    uhhhh yeah hard no on that one.

    That aside, I get what you're saying and that simply buffing cav would not restore the game to the design where cav trade the way that feels right to people vs high CB inf. But I do think some people don't mind the current design where cav are support units.

    Either way, cav need some buffs IMO. And I think the interaction is not ideal for the record. But yeah people don't all agree with that. It's not a crime.
    If i recall the complaints were about anti large braced infantry vs cav/chariots in the past and not other types, i guess it is my fault for warding it not specifically.

    im sure some people do like cav being support, but that doesn't feel warhammer, got no issues people preferring different types of units but to want a core of the warhammer game to be forced to be a side element is nothing but pure bias to me, for me i dislike infantry focused but i defiantly think they should be viable and balanaced as that is also part of warhammer, and all cav build should be just as playable as all infinity build etc.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    Entities making a successful roll for damage certainly doesn't sound like "not attacking" to me. And that is a direct quote and the only dev input in the issue so far


    FYI its not the only devs input however its not from forum but discord. Where they state that because a lot of infantry dmg was going missing on the charge before it kept the interaction between charging infantry and charging cav balanced, in other simple terms they acknowledge the current interaction is unbalanced.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    edited September 2021
    What I find disingenuous is to avoid discussion of cav balance currently altogether and try to frame it as a bug fix similar to the AOE bug or Boar Chariot bug. The cav/infantry situation is more of an unintended balance change but just because something is unintended doesn't necessarily imply it is actually worse for overall balance.


    Well it is worse but it is not a bug of cav or infantry, but it does need addressing in some way that doesnt buff cav vs other unit types or vs non charging infantry at same time make sure it doesnt nerf infantry vs charging other unit types either so its not easy.

    As for cav it is balance overall now, just the charging ifnantry into cav interaction is not balanced, cav should not be touched, its infantry that need some kind of change when charging cav, perhaps max number of models that can connect or deeper formations but that affects more than inf vs cav interaction.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    I can only repeat what Lotus already said above. It's weird to discuss that cavalry is fine in a support role when the issue is not about cavalry at all.

    The issue is that infantry after the stag fix got an unintentional boost to their charge damage by 150%!!! On the charge, that makes them overperform vs Cavalry, Chariots, Monstrous infantry, Monstrous cavalry and monsters. i.e. vs all targets that are bigger and can cause disruption, or in other words.... everything except dogs, infantry and food lords.

    Of course this needs to be fixed. Then, if you really thing cavalry are overperforming you can always start a discussion to make the design choice to make heavy cavalry into more of a support role. It won't get my vote, but that would be a fair suggestion.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,235



    infantry after the stag fix got an unintentional boost to their charge damage by 150%!!! On the charge, that makes them overperform vs Cavalry, Chariots, Monstrous infantry, Monstrous cavalry and monsters.

    Overperform by what metrics? Let me guess, charge VS charge in an open field, and pickrate/damage value/kills don't matter?
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,235

    Entities making a successful roll for damage certainly doesn't sound like "not attacking" to me. And that is a direct quote and the only dev input in the issue so far


    FYI its not the only devs input however its not from forum but discord. Where they state that because a lot of infantry dmg was going missing on the charge before it kept the interaction between charging infantry and charging cav balanced, in other simple terms they acknowledge the current interaction is unbalanced.
    Sounds like the devs are in quite the conundrum then if based on their traditional metrics cavalry is performing at acceptable levels compared to other units at their price points based on standard balancing metrics.

    Because an interaction can be unbalanced while a unit is balanced, so if you balance the interaction, you end up unbalancing the unit.

    If standard metrics show cav performance is okay, it is almost like they will need to be buffed and nerfed simultaneously to keep them balanced.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,235
    Maybe the solution is to revert the interaction to how it was in the Rakarth patch, then change charging for all units so that once you charge it cant be pulled out of for X seconds.

    Or make it so that after charging if a unit cancels or changes direction midcharge, they get a temporary speed debuff to represent the impact cancelling your momentum has on your muscles etc. (as it seems like factoring in momentum to these interactions is seen as desirable)
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145

    Entities making a successful roll for damage certainly doesn't sound like "not attacking" to me. And that is a direct quote and the only dev input in the issue so far


    FYI its not the only devs input however its not from forum but discord. Where they state that because a lot of infantry dmg was going missing on the charge before it kept the interaction between charging infantry and charging cav balanced, in other simple terms they acknowledge the current interaction is unbalanced.
    Sounds like the devs are in quite the conundrum then if based on their traditional metrics cavalry is performing at acceptable levels compared to other units at their price points based on standard balancing metrics.

    Because an interaction can be unbalanced while a unit is balanced, so if you balance the interaction, you end up unbalancing the unit.

    If standard metrics show cav performance is okay, it is almost like they will need to be buffed and nerfed simultaneously to keep them balanced.
    Once again its NOT cav that is the issue, its the ifnantry, so if cav performance is ok thats fine since cav does not need changes, its the infantry performance that needs looking into, and not vs cav but pretty much vs all large bar single enteties. I explained that few posts up, people are too focused on cav side yet cav side is working as it was previously nothing changed there, its infantry that is doint 2.7x more dmg now on the charge as opposed to before.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145

    Maybe the solution is to revert the interaction to how it was in the Rakarth patch, then change charging for all units so that once you charge it cant be pulled out of for X seconds.

    Or make it so that after charging if a unit cancels or changes direction midcharge, they get a temporary speed debuff to represent the impact cancelling your momentum has on your muscles etc. (as it seems like factoring in momentum to these interactions is seen as desirable)

    Good state was after bracing changes but pre stag fix. In that window it was very good interraction between infantry and large units.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    edited September 2021
    imagine the outcry if it was the other way around and cav did 2.7x more dmg on the charge after changes, i would be in support of fixing it asap coz it lead to unbalanced interaction and yet when its other way around the bias is shown.

    Anyway cbb anymore its going in circles, you like current state and i think its not good as it totally ruins warhammer feel for me, bugs are just as big concern as this but if i had a choice id choose bug fix as priority it just means im forced into coy and paste armies with no diversity in the meta but its still playable as much as its boring.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,235
    edited September 2021

    imagine the outcry if it was the other way around and cav did 2.7x more dmg on the charge after changes, i would be in support of fixing it asap coz it lead to unbalanced interaction and yet when its other way around the bias is shown.

    Anyway cbb anymore its going in circles, you like current state and i think its not good as it totally ruins warhammer feel for me, bugs are just as big concern as this but if i had a choice id choose bug fix as priority it just means im forced into coy and paste armies with no diversity in the meta but its still playable as much as its boring.

    I've got my issues with the current state as it is a bit whack that GW infantry can counter charge cav and trade as well as they do, even if that interaction is occurring in a vacuum and how gameplay occurs on the field is quite different. GW weapon infantry into Cav/Chariots does appear to be the major sticking point and where most of the issues stem from.

    But I've also got issues with blanket requests to buff all units of 1 type without any discussion of those units performance based on the metrics used to balance literally every other unit in the game.

    If you want to talk about outcry, can you imagine what the outcry would've been when the knockback changes were discussed (the whole Ungrim vs Stegadon experience) if melee footlords were regularly and reliably being picked AND getting their value back by standard metrics? It would've been entirely reasonable to highlight the overall balancing position of footlords before giving them what amounted to a large buff, just as it is reasonable to highlight cavalry's performance by standard metrics now when how the requested interaction change is going to play out is as a buff.

    The standards I'm applying here are the exact same. You may not like the implications of those standards, but that doesn't make it bias.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    But I've also got issues with blanket requests to buff all units of 1 type without any discussion of those units performance based on the metrics used to balance literally every other unit in the game.


    Im not sure who is asking for cav buffs i am not, i think cav should not be touched, its infantry that is the issue here and doing too much dmg, its on infantry side to adress and cav should not be touched.

    The standards I'm applying here are the exact same. You may not like the implications of those standards, but that doesn't make it bias.


    Not at all, the "standard" you are applying is based on nothing but your speculations which could or could not be rite but are not proven, so im going by comparison between patches which has been proven, who knows u might be rite and metric would show its fine like that and the game is better off not being true to warhammer and with shock cav not being shock, it could very well be the case or it could not, what is known now is that infantry is over-performing on charge compared to previous patches, its better to charge low cb anti large units than it is to brace vs large, devs said it leads to unbalanced interaction. Take it how you want it but it is how it is currently.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,235
    edited September 2021


    Not at all, the "standard" you are applying is based on nothing but your speculations which could or could not be rite but are not proven, so im going by comparison between patches which has been proven, who knows u might be rite and metric would show its fine like that and the game is better off not being true to warhammer and with shock cav not being shock, it could very well be the case or it could not, what is known now is that infantry is over-performing on charge compared to previous patches, its better to charge low cb anti large units than it is to brace vs large, devs said it leads to unbalanced interaction. Take it how you want it but it is how it is currently.

    This is just an outright lie, I have even said multiple times in this thread that if cav etc are all underperforming at their pricepoints on the metrics of pickrates/damage value/kills then that would be a justification for sweeping buffs. And not only would I accept that, I would be happy about that and fully support it. Live by the balancing standards, die by the balancing standards. But if you aren't going to address what I am actually saying in my own words as opposed to whatever caricature of my argument you have created in your head, then I agree with your earlier comment and there is little to be gained from discussing it.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    edited September 2021


    Not at all, the "standard" you are applying is based on nothing but your speculations which could or could not be rite but are not proven, so im going by comparison between patches which has been proven, who knows u might be rite and metric would show its fine like that and the game is better off not being true to warhammer and with shock cav not being shock, it could very well be the case or it could not, what is known now is that infantry is over-performing on charge compared to previous patches, its better to charge low cb anti large units than it is to brace vs large, devs said it leads to unbalanced interaction. Take it how you want it but it is how it is currently.

    This is just an outright lie, I have even said multiple times in this thread that if cav etc are all underperforming at their pricepoints on the metrics of pickrates/damage value/kills then that would be a justification for sweeping buffs. And not only would I accept that, I would be happy about that and fully support it. Live by the balancing standards, die by the balancing standards. But if you aren't going to address what I am actually saying in my own words as opposed to whatever caricature of my argument you have created in your head, then I agree with your earlier comment and there is little to be gained from discussing it.
    You're tying too hard to paint the narrative that its fine how it is, i dont know how many times i need to repeat this, its NOT on cavs performance that is the issue its infantry, cav does NOT need to be underperforming for this to be looked at, its INFANTRY who is the one with the interaction changed and not just to cav but to chariots and monster infantry also so its on them to be looked at and NOT cav, sick of repeating this really not sure why its hard to understand.

    Your statement that cav needs to be underperforming for this to change is highly missleading since cav vs other unit types interactions did not change and it means cav could still get same values as before just changed how its used and vs which units which would not show up in values unless you directly compare in the interactions between cav and infantry which im certain CA has no way to check.

    The thing to look for is infantry performance in values/dmg and vs which unit types that needs looking at.

    And once again this affects ifnantry vs NOT just cav but vs monster infantry and chariots also, so stop trying to say that cav needs to be looked at on the metrics to be adressed, they dont, cav does not need to be touched at all, or at least not buffed.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    This is not even about balancing, it's about game mechanics that went ballistic as an unintentional side effect of the stag hack. Fix the game, then we can start to discuss balance. Balance is not really the topic here, just a smoke screen to argue its fine to keep the infantry charge bug.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,051

    eumaies said:


    since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    uhhhh yeah hard no on that one.

    That aside, I get what you're saying and that simply buffing cav would not restore the game to the design where cav trade the way that feels right to people vs high CB inf. But I do think some people don't mind the current design where cav are support units.

    Either way, cav need some buffs IMO. And I think the interaction is not ideal for the record. But yeah people don't all agree with that. It's not a crime.
    If i recall the complaints were about anti large braced infantry vs cav/chariots in the past and not other types, i guess it is my fault for warding it not specifically.

    im sure some people do like cav being support, but that doesn't feel warhammer, got no issues people preferring different types of units but to want a core of the warhammer game to be forced to be a side element is nothing but pure bias to me, for me i dislike infantry focused but i defiantly think they should be viable and balanaced as that is also part of warhammer, and all cav build should be just as playable as all infinity build etc.
    One of the reasons your trample solution strikes me as so good is that it ties the fix to charge bonuses for the infantry. The spears being able to reliably land damage on cycling cav is very welcome (or else for example in practice brett cav swarms will counter spears, which they shouldn't without support) since bracing is unlikely to be changed. But infantry with high CB would have their charge bonuses neutered to reflect ... being trampled.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 779
    edited September 2021
    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:


    since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    uhhhh yeah hard no on that one.

    That aside, I get what you're saying and that simply buffing cav would not restore the game to the design where cav trade the way that feels right to people vs high CB inf. But I do think some people don't mind the current design where cav are support units.

    Either way, cav need some buffs IMO. And I think the interaction is not ideal for the record. But yeah people don't all agree with that. It's not a crime.
    If i recall the complaints were about anti large braced infantry vs cav/chariots in the past and not other types, i guess it is my fault for warding it not specifically.

    im sure some people do like cav being support, but that doesn't feel warhammer, got no issues people preferring different types of units but to want a core of the warhammer game to be forced to be a side element is nothing but pure bias to me, for me i dislike infantry focused but i defiantly think they should be viable and balanaced as that is also part of warhammer, and all cav build should be just as playable as all infinity build etc.
    One of the reasons your trample solution strikes me as so good is that it ties the fix to charge bonuses for the infantry. The spears being able to reliably land damage on cycling cav is very welcome (or else for example in practice brett cav swarms will counter spears, which they shouldn't without support) since bracing is unlikely to be changed. But infantry with high CB would have their charge bonuses neutered to reflect ... being trampled.
    Maybe the trampling solution could work (could be tested with lance formation for starters), but it leaves unanswered the question about how knockback should affect combat outcome. Now it seems knockback is neutral at best, possibly detrimental to cav sometimes, despite the fact that knockback deals impact damage and is thus meant to affect the outcome for starters. Trampling would be a different metric that adds an overlapping layer but works differently, as it would not tell the difference between high mass infantry and low mass infantry (bret could use that vs dawi but not sure it's good to add complexity). Maybe it's the impact damage itself that should be buffed but then it affects all mass interactions in the game, it feels like each solution would create more problems each time, so I understand the argument for recreating the previous state... even if as a heavy cav fan I'm not fond of the previous state either.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 779
    Damn I replied on trampling but made the dreaded third edit. Never go three edits.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:


    since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    uhhhh yeah hard no on that one.

    That aside, I get what you're saying and that simply buffing cav would not restore the game to the design where cav trade the way that feels right to people vs high CB inf. But I do think some people don't mind the current design where cav are support units.

    Either way, cav need some buffs IMO. And I think the interaction is not ideal for the record. But yeah people don't all agree with that. It's not a crime.
    If i recall the complaints were about anti large braced infantry vs cav/chariots in the past and not other types, i guess it is my fault for warding it not specifically.

    im sure some people do like cav being support, but that doesn't feel warhammer, got no issues people preferring different types of units but to want a core of the warhammer game to be forced to be a side element is nothing but pure bias to me, for me i dislike infantry focused but i defiantly think they should be viable and balanaced as that is also part of warhammer, and all cav build should be just as playable as all infinity build etc.
    One of the reasons your trample solution strikes me as so good is that it ties the fix to charge bonuses for the infantry. The spears being able to reliably land damage on cycling cav is very welcome (or else for example in practice brett cav swarms will counter spears, which they shouldn't without support) since bracing is unlikely to be changed. But infantry with high CB would have their charge bonuses neutered to reflect ... being trampled.
    I dont think it does work as its not a change do low cb units who are better of charging than bracing, it would work well with higher CB ones.

    The point you make for spears/halberds is valid but still dont feel their dmg feels rite when charging cav, though them doing well is fine, question is what would be the rite dmg.

    My initial dmg idea was to lower CB when cav is charging into infantry by % but maybe it shold be a damage reduction % insead as that is easier to get rite.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,235


    Not at all, the "standard" you are applying is based on nothing but your speculations which could or could not be rite but are not proven, so im going by comparison between patches which has been proven, who knows u might be rite and metric would show its fine like that and the game is better off not being true to warhammer and with shock cav not being shock, it could very well be the case or it could not, what is known now is that infantry is over-performing on charge compared to previous patches, its better to charge low cb anti large units than it is to brace vs large, devs said it leads to unbalanced interaction. Take it how you want it but it is how it is currently.

    This is just an outright lie, I have even said multiple times in this thread that if cav etc are all underperforming at their pricepoints on the metrics of pickrates/damage value/kills then that would be a justification for sweeping buffs. And not only would I accept that, I would be happy about that and fully support it. Live by the balancing standards, die by the balancing standards. But if you aren't going to address what I am actually saying in my own words as opposed to whatever caricature of my argument you have created in your head, then I agree with your earlier comment and there is little to be gained from discussing it.
    You're tying too hard to paint the narrative that its fine how it is, i dont know how many times i need to repeat this, its NOT on cavs performance that is the issue its infantry, cav does NOT need to be underperforming for this to be looked at, its INFANTRY who is the one with the interaction changed and not just to cav but to chariots and monster infantry also so its on them to be looked at and NOT cav, sick of repeating this really not sure why its hard to understand.

    Your statement that cav needs to be underperforming for this to change is highly missleading since cav vs other unit types interactions did not change and it means cav could still get same values as before just changed how its used and vs which units which would not show up in values unless you directly compare in the interactions between cav and infantry which im certain CA has no way to check.

    The thing to look for is infantry performance in values/dmg and vs which unit types that needs looking at.

    And once again this affects ifnantry vs NOT just cav but vs monster infantry and chariots also, so stop trying to say that cav needs to be looked at on the metrics to be adressed, they dont, cav does not need to be touched at all, or at least not buffed.
    Very little of what I've written is cav-specific commentary. You can swap in any unit in any class and the principles around price, pickrate, and performance still apply. It is more about how to approach balancing in general (or at least one major aspect of it).

    From my perspective, there seem to be genuinely positive outcomes in terms of gameplay from leaving the interactions as they are currently. There are also genuinely negative outcomes in terms of gameplay from leaving them as they are. There are always tradeoffs.

    My broader point about build diversity and the current visibility of certain units was that the incentive structure provided by current gameplay constraints in the pick screen in terms of price/unit card count of different unit types as well as the gameplay conditions on the battlefield may be playing a bigger role in determining the meta we see currently than is commonly appreciated. Hence why I highlight the continued value in using traditional metrics of assessing balance to act as a guide for future changes, even if the interaction change we are experiencing currently is both unintended and perhaps in-optimal for overall gameplay. At least that is my opinion on it.

    I would appreciate if you'd back off a bit though dude, "painting a narrative", I'm giving my opinion same as you. Disagreeing with that is fine, and tbh I think overall the disagreement and different perspective players have here has helped a lot in improving the game over the years. But acting as if there is some background motive behind my suggestions designed to ruin your experience of playing Total War Warhammer is a bit ridiculous. All the suggestions I give are ones that I sincerely think will improve the game and balance overall and help make it popular, accessible, and enjoyable for the widest number of people. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt cause I can relate to how **** lockdowns can be with no end in sight especially your first time (and I have some experience with saying stuff I shouldn't have in those circumstances as well if you recall) but this is "Balancing Discussion" not "Lotus Moon and Approved Opinions discuss balance". I think our opinions are probably closer than you think, but people can have different opinions without their being malicious intent behind it even if those opinions are wildly different.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    There are some things that points towards the stag hack being a case of "forced trading" (see spoler, copied from other thread). Even if this is not the exact mechanics, the principles/outcomes may be the same anyways.

    The problem with stags as far as I could see, especially when countercharging other cavalry, was that the stag animation is very long and would not arrive at the damage application moment until way after the opposing cav had long ago dealt their damage. That made the stag charges appear very limp. If you waited in sustained combat the stag damage would catch up pretty well but in real games that may not be a good option. You want the charge damage up front. Now, the animations didn't change in 1.12.0, but damage still registers simultaneously as the opposing charge damage now, on impact.

    The only way I could explain that would be if being hit while you are in the process of your own charge animation, the engine will now force trading between these two units instead of concluding the attack hitting before the other first as the simulation of the interaction would dictate. I would call this "forced trading".

    Now, if we would assume that forced trading is the stag fix, then that actually can explain all other outcomes as well.

    When cavalry charges infantry, then the cav animation does conclude first, cause knockbacks and model mingling, that leads to attacks being invalid or overridden by the flying/knockback animation. If however there is forced trading being applied at the moment of the cav charge hitting, then that would explain why the infantry gets to deal their damage before being knocked back, and it would also explain why the infantry gets such a high damage spike at t=0 - before they would finish all their animations.

    I can't say I have seen anything that would contradict this explanation, but it does provide a rationale to explain how damage can be applied that early in the interaction. To me forced trading appears to be a more plausible mechanism than uninterruptable damage from what I understand today, because of the timing issue. Otherwise the outcomes are the same so it doesn't matter in practice as long as they fix it, or just turn it off for infantry.


    Now, if this is the case, then it's a pretty ugly hack as it throws all information out the window that the simulated models generated as to who hit first, who gets interrupted or who gets knocked over, or who is overextending so that they miss. These "simulated" interactions are adding accuracy to determining combat results, making interactions more intuitive depending on situations. For example separating between a clean charge and a mutual charge.

    Now, instead of clinging to the undeserved performance spike to infantry on the charge, why don't we try to see the possibilities here instead? What forced trading does, if this is indeed what is happening, is that it mimics the effect of long weapons, or a "guaranteed strike simultaneously". Infantry units should not have this on the charge, but maybe braced infantry should? This is a hack that could be used specifically as an addition to bracing for infantry that would make sense to have such a trait. That way you could transfer this type of "forced trading" onto braced CDvL units being charged by cavalry, allowing braced models to perform hits directly on impact. It would make sense to buff bracing in this way as it is not charge reflection, but actual hits being performed on impact. This I would support as it would make sense and actually make the engine better simulate outcomes since charging cav into braced spears right now is pretty limp.

    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,145


    Not at all, the "standard" you are applying is based on nothing but your speculations which could or could not be rite but are not proven, so im going by comparison between patches which has been proven, who knows u might be rite and metric would show its fine like that and the game is better off not being true to warhammer and with shock cav not being shock, it could very well be the case or it could not, what is known now is that infantry is over-performing on charge compared to previous patches, its better to charge low cb anti large units than it is to brace vs large, devs said it leads to unbalanced interaction. Take it how you want it but it is how it is currently.

    This is just an outright lie, I have even said multiple times in this thread that if cav etc are all underperforming at their pricepoints on the metrics of pickrates/damage value/kills then that would be a justification for sweeping buffs. And not only would I accept that, I would be happy about that and fully support it. Live by the balancing standards, die by the balancing standards. But if you aren't going to address what I am actually saying in my own words as opposed to whatever caricature of my argument you have created in your head, then I agree with your earlier comment and there is little to be gained from discussing it.
    You're tying too hard to paint the narrative that its fine how it is, i dont know how many times i need to repeat this, its NOT on cavs performance that is the issue its infantry, cav does NOT need to be underperforming for this to be looked at, its INFANTRY who is the one with the interaction changed and not just to cav but to chariots and monster infantry also so its on them to be looked at and NOT cav, sick of repeating this really not sure why its hard to understand.

    Your statement that cav needs to be underperforming for this to change is highly missleading since cav vs other unit types interactions did not change and it means cav could still get same values as before just changed how its used and vs which units which would not show up in values unless you directly compare in the interactions between cav and infantry which im certain CA has no way to check.

    The thing to look for is infantry performance in values/dmg and vs which unit types that needs looking at.

    And once again this affects ifnantry vs NOT just cav but vs monster infantry and chariots also, so stop trying to say that cav needs to be looked at on the metrics to be adressed, they dont, cav does not need to be touched at all, or at least not buffed.
    Very little of what I've written is cav-specific commentary. You can swap in any unit in any class and the principles around price, pickrate, and performance still apply. It is more about how to approach balancing in general (or at least one major aspect of it).

    From my perspective, there seem to be genuinely positive outcomes in terms of gameplay from leaving the interactions as they are currently. There are also genuinely negative outcomes in terms of gameplay from leaving them as they are. There are always tradeoffs.

    My broader point about build diversity and the current visibility of certain units was that the incentive structure provided by current gameplay constraints in the pick screen in terms of price/unit card count of different unit types as well as the gameplay conditions on the battlefield may be playing a bigger role in determining the meta we see currently than is commonly appreciated. Hence why I highlight the continued value in using traditional metrics of assessing balance to act as a guide for future changes, even if the interaction change we are experiencing currently is both unintended and perhaps in-optimal for overall gameplay. At least that is my opinion on it.

    I would appreciate if you'd back off a bit though dude, "painting a narrative", I'm giving my opinion same as you. Disagreeing with that is fine, and tbh I think overall the disagreement and different perspective players have here has helped a lot in improving the game over the years. But acting as if there is some background motive behind my suggestions designed to ruin your experience of playing Total War Warhammer is a bit ridiculous. All the suggestions I give are ones that I sincerely think will improve the game and balance overall and help make it popular, accessible, and enjoyable for the widest number of people. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt cause I can relate to how **** lockdowns can be with no end in sight especially your first time (and I have some experience with saying stuff I shouldn't have in those circumstances as well if you recall) but this is "Balancing Discussion" not "Lotus Moon and Approved Opinions discuss balance". I think our opinions are probably closer than you think, but people can have different opinions without their being malicious intent behind it even if those opinions are wildly different.
    yeah dont agree with what you wrote, i think you're trying to justify the performance and using claims such as current diversity is good and that cav was overperforming before as well as cav should be support to try paint the narrative that this interaction is good somehow for the game. I do think there is a background motivation tho which is from dislike of such builds and that infantry should be the focus of build is the feeling i get, (since i know you think game should notbe about micro but strategy) when i combine those discussions with what you wrote in regards to reinforcements/capture points. I fell what you think will improve the game will actually make it worse hence my strong stance on few things. tho i mean what are opinions about balance? they are suggestions people want for the game to be the way the want it to be, it goes for you and it goes for me and anyone making a balance suggestion, difference is i want all styles and strategies to be equally viable to use and be countered so everyone can play what they like within restrictions that are given (i know you will try twist it that why not remove unit caps......yadidada, which totally misses the point im making), i see there are quite a lot that dont want that though, they want just what they use/play to be the most viable way and what they dislike play against to be non viable. And come on please how many times you told me i want buffs/suggestions/changes for something based on me using it or nerfing it because i dont use it, i lost count now but recently i recall two or 3, so weird you say what you say above.


    Here just to clarify where i stand so its clear:

    I want bracing to work well

    I want non anti large infantry to not over perfrom vs cav/chariots/monster infantry on the charge

    If bracing cannot be solved for units to missplacing braced with side steps than i like what eumies said and that is that spears/halberds doing well on the charge vs cav similar to what is happening now so cav/chariots/mosnter inf fears head on engagments with those but if the unit is not anti large than no.

    Ideal state to me would be the following

    Large units take about 40% less dmg from charging non anti large weapons than they are taking in current patch
    Large units take about 20% less dmg from spears/halberds than they are taking now when those are charging

    This only seems to need to apply to the first 5s of the engagement where the spike happens in the first 2s that causes small units do 2.7x more dmg than before stag fix

    Above does not include monsters only the categories i mentioned and misisle cav and misisle chariots do not need to be changed.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,051

    Damn I replied on trampling but made the dreaded third edit. Never go three edits.

    i promise to read your comment using the mindset I was in five hours ago when you attempted a dreaded third edit.

    Honestly, that takes balls. I get nervous when doing a second edit; you never know with this forum.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited September 2021
    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:


    since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    uhhhh yeah hard no on that one.

    That aside, I get what you're saying and that simply buffing cav would not restore the game to the design where cav trade the way that feels right to people vs high CB inf. But I do think some people don't mind the current design where cav are support units.

    Either way, cav need some buffs IMO. And I think the interaction is not ideal for the record. But yeah people don't all agree with that. It's not a crime.
    If i recall the complaints were about anti large braced infantry vs cav/chariots in the past and not other types, i guess it is my fault for warding it not specifically.

    im sure some people do like cav being support, but that doesn't feel warhammer, got no issues people preferring different types of units but to want a core of the warhammer game to be forced to be a side element is nothing but pure bias to me, for me i dislike infantry focused but i defiantly think they should be viable and balanaced as that is also part of warhammer, and all cav build should be just as playable as all infinity build etc.
    One of the reasons your trample solution strikes me as so good is that it ties the fix to charge bonuses for the infantry. The spears being able to reliably land damage on cycling cav is very welcome (or else for example in practice brett cav swarms will counter spears, which they shouldn't without support) since bracing is unlikely to be changed. But infantry with high CB would have their charge bonuses neutered to reflect ... being trampled.
    that is exactly whats wrong with it though; whats the point of GW infantry if half the time they lose a significant portion of their stats? in 1.10 there was a lot of talk of boosting GW infantry, both the lowtier and high tier, because a role as can openers simply isnt enough to justify their cost, they need to be damage dealers as well.
    Even now most of the time GW infantry is easy meat, you outmaneuver them w cavalry, tie them up with sword infantry which generally beat them, shoot them to pieces before they even make contact etcetc
    its possible to argue in favor of both balance in 1.10 and 1.12 in terms of cavalry/large vs infantry generally, I'm not opposed to some middle ground - which ppl seem to have moved away from and are now just demanding 1.10 cavalry dominating infantry while being faster...but I dont see any way to justify GW infantry getting neutered in the countercharge in 1.10, with no upside to show for it in terms of internal balance within the infantry class...if they are going to lose their CB again they should defo get a big buff so they dont become so rare again. why would you choose GW infantry over sword and spear if most of the time they wont get to use their stats? GW infantry need ridiculously high armor targets to earn back their cost outside charge, can opener is far too niche a role
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,051
    RawSugar said:

    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:


    since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    uhhhh yeah hard no on that one.

    That aside, I get what you're saying and that simply buffing cav would not restore the game to the design where cav trade the way that feels right to people vs high CB inf. But I do think some people don't mind the current design where cav are support units.

    Either way, cav need some buffs IMO. And I think the interaction is not ideal for the record. But yeah people don't all agree with that. It's not a crime.
    If i recall the complaints were about anti large braced infantry vs cav/chariots in the past and not other types, i guess it is my fault for warding it not specifically.

    im sure some people do like cav being support, but that doesn't feel warhammer, got no issues people preferring different types of units but to want a core of the warhammer game to be forced to be a side element is nothing but pure bias to me, for me i dislike infantry focused but i defiantly think they should be viable and balanaced as that is also part of warhammer, and all cav build should be just as playable as all infinity build etc.
    One of the reasons your trample solution strikes me as so good is that it ties the fix to charge bonuses for the infantry. The spears being able to reliably land damage on cycling cav is very welcome (or else for example in practice brett cav swarms will counter spears, which they shouldn't without support) since bracing is unlikely to be changed. But infantry with high CB would have their charge bonuses neutered to reflect ... being trampled.
    that is exactly whats wrong with it though; whats the point of GW infantry if half the time they lose a significant portion of their stats? in 1.10 there was a lot of talk of boosting GW infantry, both the lowtier and high tier, because a role as can openers simply isnt enough to justify their cost, they need to be damage dealers as well.
    Even now most of the time GW infantry is easy meat, you outmaneuver them w cavalry, tie them up with sword infantry which generally beat them, shoot them to pieces before they even make contact etcetc
    its possible to argue in favor of both balance in 1.10 and 1.12 in terms of cavalry/large vs infantry generally, I'm not opposed to some middle ground - which ppl seem to have moved away from and are now just demanding 1.10 cavalry dominating infantry while being faster...but I dont see any way to justify GW infantry getting neutered in the countercharge in 1.10, with no upside to show for it in terms of internal balance within the infantry class...if they are going to lose their CB again they should defo get a big buff so they dont become so rare again. why would you choose GW infantry over sword and spear if most of the time they wont get to use their stats? GW infantry need ridiculously high armor targets to earn back their cost outside charge, can opener is far too niche a role
    well the original proposal was they would lose half their CB vs counter charging cav. So they'd still be quite strong but wouldn't necessarily trade up vs a unit that is even more specialized to be charging. It would be pretty even. Somewhere between what it used to be and now.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    The problem is not cb-related though, and I also don't agree that gw infantry were weak in 1.10.2, or traded badly with cav at that. Even dwarf warriors gw were useful after the buffs they received and they were the worst of the lot as far as I can tell. Red crests were OK, maybe could use -25 gold, maybe not. Marauders were fine damage dealers, just not fit to tank a charge themselves. Neither were rcs, due to low armour on both. Even so, in 1.10.2 the marauders traded evenly, or even up vs kotbs in isolation, they just didn't crush cav for value.

    When we step up to white lions and cwgw they were perfectly fine units. Some would even say strong. The last change cwgw received historically was a nerf to cost. The only thing that made them look weaker was the recent buff to cwhb.

    When we get up to black orcs they were very strong units. Chosen gw were perfectly OK. Champs gw were meh but not too far off, could receive a buff. Did I forget anyone? Squires were pretty bad I guess, but got some love in t&t and were getting there. Longbeards gw were never my favourite, but I guess perfectly OK since better dwarf players than i use them more than I do. Wwr could use a general redesign. On a unit for unit basis there could be a case for buffing the odd gw unit, but what we're dealing with here is a fundamental change to the engine that unintentionally spiked infantry charge damage by more than a factor 2.5. The key here is that this damage spike is due to how the engine now forces trading regardless of timing/knockback/position, so it is unrelated to cb. Also units with 0 cb gets their charge damage spiked by the same amount.

    As long as this is not fixed infantry will always keep countering chariots for example, because they have low md and the disruption they cause is their defence, not their md. The same goes for all dedicated shock cav, and no we don't want to compensate for this by buffing their md because then you buff cav blobs really much. Forced hit reg on infantry charging disrupting units breaks the balance we have between these unit types. We can't have disruption not affecting battle results, it doesn't work..

    We really just need this turned off for the infantry castes, if it stays on cav to fix the stags doesn't break anything because cav anyways have animations that conclude directly on impact. Except stags....
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited September 2021
    midtier GW did decently despite mechanics gimping them in 1.10 due to armor/AP ratios being in their favor vs most cavalry. GW chaff was rare, antiinfantry elites were extremely rare, very much because of knockdown.
    but sure generally GW infantry was playable just like cavalry is generally playable now, because we are talking about a fairly rare interaction.
    and stop with the lying, of course CB is related when we are talking about bringing back a mechanic that halves charge damage....removing the mechanic still does not increase charge damage, the question is whether infantry should have their charge damage halved in countercharge vs large.
    even if 1.10 is the "normal" state that doesnt change what that state was; a mechanic nerfing infantry countercharge damage vs large

    halving CB is better than halving damage, but still hits GW infantry disproportionally. might be ok due to AP/armor values though
    Post edited by RawSugar on
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    RawSugar said:

    midtier GW did decently despite mechanics gimping them in 1.10 due to armor/AP ratios being in their favor vs most cavalry. GW chaff was rare, antiinfantry elites were extremely rare, very much because of knockdown.
    but sure generally GW infantry was playable just like cavalry is generally playable now, because we are talking about a fairly rare interaction.
    and stop with the lying, of course CB is related when we are talking about bringing back a mechanic that halves charge damage....removing the mechanic still does not increase charge damage, the question is whether infantry should have their charge damage halved in countercharge vs large.
    even if 1.10 is the "normal" state that doesnt change what that state was; a mechanic nerfing infantry countercharge damage

    halving CB is better than halving damage, but still hits GW infantry disproportionally. might be ok due to AP/armor values though

    No i am not lying, you're just wrong as usual. The problem is not related to cb because the problem is explicitly caused by too many attacks registering damage when being disrupted. Because, trading is forced to the extent that disruptions are overridden. Also units with 0 cb register twice too many attacks. Nerfing cb would only buff countercharging halberds and other bvl units relatively speaking and not fix the cause of the problem. It would only tune down the unit type you want to buff, ie gw infantry.

    Your fear of having working interactions between infantry and large is irrational. Infantry has not been abused after Dec 2, 2020, and even before then it wasn't as bad as the memes say..
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    of course you're lying. either that or you seriously cant figure out that CB is related to charge damage. im still giving it 50/50
Sign In or Register to comment.