And I'm not just talking about the ranking system.
I'm talking about the fundamental format itself: 2 armies (blindly) pick into each other on a map, and they simply... fight. No objectives whatsoever to fight over. This "feature" of quick battle generally means faster and more mobile armies will outperform the slower ones. Why? The slow armies have almost no way to force a fight, giving the mobile army far too much control over the battlefield than you would otherwise see.
If any other RTS/RTT game had no "objective," no base to defend, then of course those units that are good at not taking damage, but are also good at dealing it (i'm looking at you Magic, Monsters, cycle-chargers, and ranged units), will be far more effective than units that do not do this (namely, infantry).
- A common strategy in any battle, in any game, for the slower (but perhaps harder-hitting army) to effectively respond to the faster and therefore generally out-of-reach army is to force a fight on their terms - usually by attacking the enemy's hard points (objectives). You simply cannot do this in Total War. This game mode makes sense in the context of campaign (where the map itself is territory), but fails horribly for multiplayer.
Ever tried playing quick battle? I loath it because I'm almost guaranteed to fight some skirmish cav spamming, draw-kiting, soulstealing spamming player just waiting for me.
And we all know it's broken. This fact is evident in the very nature of Turin's (and other community) tournaments rules: they make up, and constantly change, their own rules for limits on units, limits on Single Entities, rules of engagement to dictate what forms of kiting are allowed and not. With out these "rules", the most technically effective strategies would clearly go against the spirit of the game (which we all have an idea of, even if we do not acknowledge it). While these rules do serve to improve the quality of competitive matches and crucially preserves some semblance of fair play, multiplayer skirmish cannot escape the fact it's based on the deeply flawed game mode that has basically not seen any updates since Warhammer 1. Splitting the multiplayer community up between:
1. those that preserve through quick battle and volunteer to participate in non-official communities
2. those whose frustration with multiplayer led them to give up on it entirely
Can you imagine joining a Starcraft 2 tournament, only to learn that the rules of what you're allowed to build or make aren't the same in the officially sanctioned ladder mode? It would be ridiculous! The only rules you should be concerned about are those programmed into the game. However good community rules may be, they will always appear as arbitrary to the uninitiated.
Any multiplayer community that demands I set up private skirmish games through organized through invites just so I can have a semblance of balance is one that is doomed to be forever stymied and tiny - niche in nature.
Imagine how much Dota, Starcraft 2, and even CoH2, some of the most popular strategy multiplayer games, have changed since their original multiplayer inception. Yet we are suppose to pretend the Quick battle format is ok? Like it doesn't signicantly impact and influence the competitive meta? CA's domination mode seems to acknowledge this trend, which is why I'm very hopeful for the multiplayer in Warhammer 3 (perhaps they can finally focus on multiplayer after years of successful single player DLC and expansions).