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

Quick Battle is Broken

vindicarexvindicarex Registered Users Posts: 77
edited October 10 in Multiplayer
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).

Comments

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,492
    What you say is not true though, it depends on amry composition and slow armies that are well made can beat any faster armies.

    What you want to do is basically remove the advantage of speed that is payed for...

    Draw kitting can happen and is BS i agree there but the rest of what you describe is either you're playing vs a better player or simply your "slow" army is not well made.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 671
    Tournament rules have generally stayed the same actually QB has tried to emulate it to some extent with unit caps(still not the same as tournament caps) but it’s not the same. It can be rather toxic cause certain play styles are basically allowed draw kiting, forest camping, edge camping with artillery box, choke point holding(holy fing heck I still don’t understand why QB maps have impassable Terrain).
  • vindicarexvindicarex Registered Users Posts: 77
    edited October 11


    This is the most recent "Eternal Championship League" Grand Finals hosted by Turin. Just look at the army compositions involved - basically all of them filled to the brim with skirmish missile units, cav/skirmish cav, and flying/single entity. if there are infantry, they are simply marauders or lizard warriors (basic infantry simply to provide token defence/absorb charges for ranged units).


    Yet I'm suppose to believe "slow" (e.g. an elite melee infantry based army) are supposed to be just as viable a build as 95% of the armies taken in the HIGHEST LEVEL OF PLAY?

    CA's addition of domination mode will provide a far healthier balance/meta in terms of viable builds and reducing the more gimmicky aspects of MP.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,492
    edited October 11
    All elite melee infantry are not anymore or less viable than all elite cav or all elite skirmishes armies...they all dont work.

    Try a 5 grail knight army...see how well you do, or 5 waywatchers. Elites of all kinds work with other units in roster, its why you generally only see 2 or so elites in armies, including cav or ranged.

    If an army of 5 black guard is viable vs all types of units it be broken and stupid....those 0 brainboxes lol


    Did you actually watch the games?

    Game 1 10 melee infantry on Coast and 11 on chaos including 4 Syreens and 4 forsaken 1 CW GW
    Game 2 5 melee infantry on LZM and 8 on DE ( 4 saurs and 3 bleakswords and 5 bleakc spears )
    Game 3 4 on LZM and 5 on BM
    Game 4 8 on chaos and 4 on BM (chaos includes chaos warrior variants)
    Game 5 7 on WE and 5 on other WE
    Game 6 9 on coast and 5 on BM
    Game 7 2 on LZM and 6 on VC
    Game 8 8on chaos and 0 on WE (Slower army won)
    Game 9 10 on empire and 6 on LZM
    Game 10 8 on lZM and 0 on DE (Faster army won but had no ranged skirmishes)
    Game 11 4 on WE and 9on HE


    What is the issue? most people went for all round armies and didnt go too much in neither skirmish or mobility? To me it looks like a very healthy overall spread of units used.

    The army break down is very good and shows clearly how wrong you are. Its very clear that majority of people in the event used a "balanced" army approach and did not try to go too far in one direction, and the times they did (2 all mobility armies) once it lost and another time it won.

    Domination mode is gonna be a massive fail...GL with it.


    What is with people wanting infantry to dominate? why cannot people be non bias and want all styles to be viable and used?

    what exactly do you want to see? that people will only use melee infantry and win all games? absolutely absurd and unbalanced if you feel that should be the case.


  • vindicarexvindicarex Registered Users Posts: 77

    Luckily the Dev's agree with me, and not you.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,492


    Luckily the Dev's agree with me, and not you.

    The same devs who though that laboratory is a good thing?

    I feel quite strong that domination mode will be a failure but its fine if its added so people like yourself can hopefully enjoy it and have fun playing with others who view it as a fun game mode, what i mean by it will fail is that it will take away competitiveness and lead to what I consider stupid armies and play styles.

    Perhaps im wrong and i will eat my words but from what i seen and heard about it, i do have strong feeling it will not be a popular mode and will die down as fast as laboratory, as long as its not forced to be played (so made mandatory was of ladder games) i think its fine if its added.

    But i strongly disagree it be some balanced way of playing and even more so that current way is "unfun/unbalanced".

    The speared of current competitive armies on Beta is very good and i find your post totally wrong and untrue.
  • ThisIsREMThisIsREM Registered Users Posts: 242

    All elite melee infantry are not anymore or less viable than all elite cav or all elite skirmishes armies...they all dont work.

    Try a 5 grail knight army...see how well you do, or 5 waywatchers. Elites of all kinds work with other units in roster, its why you generally only see 2 or so elites in armies, including cav or ranged.

    If an army of 5 black guard is viable vs all types of units it be broken and stupid....those 0 brainboxes lol


    Did you actually watch the games?

    Game 1 10 melee infantry on Coast and 11 on chaos including 4 Syreens and 4 forsaken 1 CW GW
    Game 2 5 melee infantry on LZM and 8 on DE ( 4 saurs and 3 bleakswords and 5 bleakc spears )
    Game 3 4 on LZM and 5 on BM
    Game 4 8 on chaos and 4 on BM (chaos includes chaos warrior variants)
    Game 5 7 on WE and 5 on other WE
    Game 6 9 on coast and 5 on BM
    Game 7 2 on LZM and 6 on VC
    Game 8 8on chaos and 0 on WE (Slower army won)
    Game 9 10 on empire and 6 on LZM
    Game 10 8 on lZM and 0 on DE (Faster army won but had no ranged skirmishes)
    Game 11 4 on WE and 9on HE


    What is the issue? most people went for all round armies and didnt go too much in neither skirmish or mobility? To me it looks like a very healthy overall spread of units used.

    The army break down is very good and shows clearly how wrong you are. Its very clear that majority of people in the event used a "balanced" army approach and did not try to go too far in one direction, and the times they did (2 all mobility armies) once it lost and another time it won.

    Domination mode is gonna be a massive fail...GL with it.


    What is with people wanting infantry to dominate? why cannot people be non bias and want all styles to be viable and used?

    what exactly do you want to see? that people will only use melee infantry and win all games? absolutely absurd and unbalanced if you feel that should be the case.


    Tbh I think only the last BO3 was played on cav beta and the games were a joke. Who would win, 9 spears including 5 of the best heavy spears in the game, or 8 cavalry units with tiny, non ap infantry contingent that deals magic dmg (vs the 5 armoured spears with magic resist)? WE had 0 units that should be efficient at dealing with spears and still won, comfortably, vs one of the best TW player of all time microing his spears.

    The DE game was not fun to watch either, but Felkon screwed up so massively with his lord that I guess it is possible to argue that he deserved to lose based on that alone.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,492
    edited October 14
    ThisIsREM said:

    All elite melee infantry are not anymore or less viable than all elite cav or all elite skirmishes armies...they all dont work.

    Try a 5 grail knight army...see how well you do, or 5 waywatchers. Elites of all kinds work with other units in roster, its why you generally only see 2 or so elites in armies, including cav or ranged.

    If an army of 5 black guard is viable vs all types of units it be broken and stupid....those 0 brainboxes lol


    Did you actually watch the games?

    Game 1 10 melee infantry on Coast and 11 on chaos including 4 Syreens and 4 forsaken 1 CW GW
    Game 2 5 melee infantry on LZM and 8 on DE ( 4 saurs and 3 bleakswords and 5 bleakc spears )
    Game 3 4 on LZM and 5 on BM
    Game 4 8 on chaos and 4 on BM (chaos includes chaos warrior variants)
    Game 5 7 on WE and 5 on other WE
    Game 6 9 on coast and 5 on BM
    Game 7 2 on LZM and 6 on VC
    Game 8 8on chaos and 0 on WE (Slower army won)
    Game 9 10 on empire and 6 on LZM
    Game 10 8 on lZM and 0 on DE (Faster army won but had no ranged skirmishes)
    Game 11 4 on WE and 9on HE


    What is the issue? most people went for all round armies and didnt go too much in neither skirmish or mobility? To me it looks like a very healthy overall spread of units used.

    The army break down is very good and shows clearly how wrong you are. Its very clear that majority of people in the event used a "balanced" army approach and did not try to go too far in one direction, and the times they did (2 all mobility armies) once it lost and another time it won.

    Domination mode is gonna be a massive fail...GL with it.


    What is with people wanting infantry to dominate? why cannot people be non bias and want all styles to be viable and used?

    what exactly do you want to see? that people will only use melee infantry and win all games? absolutely absurd and unbalanced if you feel that should be the case.


    Tbh I think only the last BO3 was played on cav beta and the games were a joke. Who would win, 9 spears including 5 of the best heavy spears in the game, or 8 cavalry units with tiny, non ap infantry contingent that deals magic dmg (vs the 5 armoured spears with magic resist)? WE had 0 units that should be efficient at dealing with spears and still won, comfortably, vs one of the best TW player of all time microing his spears.

    The DE game was not fun to watch either, but Felkon screwed up so massively with his lord that I guess it is possible to argue that he deserved to lose based on that alone.
    If u let the smaller number of cav get rear charges on you and are never braced i see no issue with the outcome, if you see how the game actually played, felcon got heavly outplayed.

    I mean im happy be HE in that spot willing to redo those games with those armies? Id easily favor that HE army vs the WE one 9 out of 10 times.

    Whats fun to watch though is subjective so i would not throw that around.

    If anything that game is a nice proof that build roulette is a myth and skill matters

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file