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

Some tentative pros and cons of the MP game design and "balance" of tactics

eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 9,508
Obviously still feeling out the game and game modes most of us have yet to play, but... still some initial thoughts.

Tentative Pros:
- The domination game mode is kind of like a mini-campaign simulator in a way. It combines elements of campaign multiplayer (as sort of a multi-phase battle) and traditional battlefield multiplayer in a way that may be a lot of fun so long as there are lots of ways to play the game.
- I saw some amount of high quality gameplay in the early access Domination games; with players making interesting strategic decisions about where to press the attack and where to retreat and how to split their forces. Combined arms use (of different types of units) was small scale, but sometimes it happened. Flanking did sometimes occur both between individual units but also in terms of multiple unit groups coalescing to surround an enemy position from different directions.
- I didn't see yet, but could definitely imagine players being more cagey about when to pick fights and how to prepare a formation and a location to engage with the enemy. Strategic terrain in between cap points; waiting until you have assembled the right force in the right place; picking where in the enemy force to strike, retreating from combats to preserve units. All of this could easily happen with this game design even if it's not peoples' first instincts.
- Use of terrain looked really promising; choke points weren't a major factor per se but there are alot of them to be picked up and used if and when you decide to create a situation in which you punish an opponent who is under pressure to attack. Woods and stalked units and ambushes all feel like they will play important roles when players start using factions that have more of those tactics. The basic observation that terrain matters more when it is positioned (near or far) in relation to an objective element like a cap point I think is an important one.
- There are clearly pros and cons to fast vs slow units in the game in terms of mobility vs map control; and while most current factions don't use a lot of ranged tools Ranged units could definitely be important because arrows move faster than most units and control more territory. Overall, I think the value of unit diversity is still there, even if most games didn't involve much ranged firepower yet.

Tentative Cons:
- Much, but not all, of the Domination games showcased so far have seen players in a rather chicken-with-head-cut-off frantic rush to contest capture points. Maybe this is just nerves, inexperience, excitement, or incorrect assumptions around what you have to do to win, but Domination will be a lot better if making deliberate decisions and gathering forces when appropriate is a significant part of the gameplay. It could be that is what more experienced players will start to do, or it could be that something about the pace of the capturing or converting enemy CP control is overly incentivizing players to scrap for every second of cap point time to the exclusion of deliberate planning. The jury is still out, but I think it's something to watch for.
- I can't tell how much killing units matters in this game mode, relative to frantic cap point contesting. Is attacking the enemy army for the purpose of scoring advantageous damage still a legitimate tactic, particularly if it's near their reinforcement zones, or are the reinforcement rates so high that killing the enemy units in their "half" is not feasible and killing enemy units in general is just a minor factor that buys a little more cap time? I can't tell yet, but I hope the starting force amount will be large enough and the reinforcement pace will be subtle enough that killing the enemy army can still matter more than incremental advantages in cap point time.
- There are several MP game modes now (even if Domination is the ranked one), but between FFA, Siege battles, Domination, and Land Battles it seems really negligent that only Land Battles would be left without even a simple bare bones mechanic to determine who wins games. Lots of simple systems using existing cap points have been proposed that could've been added to this game mode beloved by a lot of players. I don't think Land Battles has to be the most important game mode, but it is weird to have it not receive even minimal design attention when it's been the cornerstone of MP for so many years and the technology is clearly there to use a cap point system of some kind (with very gentle incentives, basically just a way to end games that go very long).
Post edited by CA_Will#2514 on
«13

Comments

  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,275
    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .


    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,352
    To me it looked like a 1/2 way point between campaign and land battles, disappointed its the ranked mode but agree with your cons and pros, shame that land battle did not get the main improvement that it needed which is an victory condition in form of objectives.

    I did find it more fun to watch when it was 2 v 2 though than 1 v 1, it felt like a headless AI rush in 1 v 1 but in 2 v 2 felt actually like a strategical fight to a point
  • The_real_FAUST#6885The_real_FAUST#6885 Registered Users Posts: 2,068
    Agree with your points.

    Simply adding CPs to regular battles is all that is needed to boost them to being competitive and fair and loved
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    I'll just copy/paste what I wrote in another thread here, it fits better in here:

    I guess Domination could be a decent arcade game, but that's not the strength of total war.... the strength of total war is epic battles between two armies with a high degree of tactics around how you deploy, set up flanks, harass and support, create synnergies and apply pressure with artillery to win the day. The whole grand tactics aspect seems to be completely killed by a grindy reinforcement tug-of-war gameplay instead of a real battle.

    I think CA threw the baby out with the bath water.

    It's very possible to make a really GOOD game mode by keeping the strengths of TW2 (epic army vs army tactical battles) and removing the weaknesses (corner camping and non-participation) by introducing capture points win condition. The only thing CA needs to do is to give us the option to play traditional battles with flags, then redesign how flags work a bit so that they are a bit less dominant and don't immediately force melee. The objective of a battle should be to be the army that holds the battlefield when the battle is over, not which army is most efficient at brooding on flags until they collected 5000 points while dying...

    All we need is to add flags in a slightly softer implementation that forces participation, but without immediately forcing premature melee grinds.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,352
    edited January 28
    PROS - would be a nice mode for age of sigmar total war

    CONS - DOW2, COH do it better already



    Total war has always been an RTT now its an RTS very strange move for an expension of a game
    Post edited by Lotus_Moon#2452 on
  • ThibixMagnus#8300ThibixMagnus#8300 Registered Users Posts: 849
    edited January 28
    one specific thing, maybe a big issue in the current mode is the way victory points are counted, inducing the wrong gameplay. If you frantically reap as many victory points as possible in the early stage, you can then focus on defending only one capture point and still win because of your head start. Other flag games (at least Relic's: Dawn of War 2, company of heroes) work differently: at any moment, you only score if you have more capture points than the oponent, so you have to defend 2 out of 3. It is risky to split forces, so it incentivizes actually winning engagements and routing the enemy, encouraging you to move as one cohesive fighting force, while some light auxiliaries exert map pressure elsewhere. It actually makes engagements less about the capture points until the final stages. It also makes the situation easier to read, whoever has a majority of capture points is winning, instead of doing the math of "which head start is enough to hold on just one point".
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,377

    one specific thing, maybe a big issue in the current mode is the way victory points are counted, inducing the wrong gameplay. If you frantically reap as many victory points as possible in the early stage, you can then focus on defending only one capture point and still win because of your head start. Other flag games (at least Relic's: Dawn of War 2, company of heroes) work differently: at any moment, you only score if you have more capture points than the oponent, so you have to defend 2 out of 3. It is risky to split forces, so it incentivizes actually winning engagements and routing the enemy, encouraging you to move as one cohesive fighting force, while some light auxiliaries exert map pressure elsewhere. It actually makes engagements less about the capture points until the final stages. It also makes the situation easier to read, whoever has a majority of capture points is winning, instead of doing the math of "which head start is enough to hold on just one point".

    Yea, will have to see how this implementation plays out. I can't see the exact reason for why CA did the approach they did with this one so not going to judge it as good or bad til I can figure it out.

    I'm wondering if the difficulty in telling at a glance who is winning in the midgame is intentional design to keep both players scrapping for points. Going to be tough to know for sure til I can play and get a real feel for it.
  • ThibixMagnus#8300ThibixMagnus#8300 Registered Users Posts: 849
    edited January 28

    one specific thing, maybe a big issue in the current mode is the way victory points are counted, inducing the wrong gameplay. If you frantically reap as many victory points as possible in the early stage, you can then focus on defending only one capture point and still win because of your head start. Other flag games (at least Relic's: Dawn of War 2, company of heroes) work differently: at any moment, you only score if you have more capture points than the oponent, so you have to defend 2 out of 3. It is risky to split forces, so it incentivizes actually winning engagements and routing the enemy, encouraging you to move as one cohesive fighting force, while some light auxiliaries exert map pressure elsewhere. It actually makes engagements less about the capture points until the final stages. It also makes the situation easier to read, whoever has a majority of capture points is winning, instead of doing the math of "which head start is enough to hold on just one point".

    Yea, will have to see how this implementation plays out. I can't see the exact reason for why CA did the approach they did with this one so not going to judge it as good or bad til I can figure it out.

    I'm wondering if the difficulty in telling at a glance who is winning in the midgame is intentional design to keep both players scrapping for points. Going to be tough to know for sure til I can play and get a real feel for it.
    sure it needs actual testing... I think forcing to scrap for points wouldn't be a good design, they are already a victory condition... Also just adding to initial remarks, I also feel like units should only be able to cap/decap when there are no enemies in the capping area. Again to favor more "win the engagement, then cap", which again would be a bit more total war and less absurd meat grinder.
  • SullatellaSullatella Registered Users Posts: 13
    edited January 28
    sure it needs actual testing... I think forcing to scrap for points wouldn't be a good design, they are already a victory condition... Also just adding to initial remarks, I also feel like units should only be able to cap/decap when there are no enemies in the capping area. Again to favor more "win the engagement, then cap", which again would be a bit more total war and less absurd meat grinder.

    ----------------------------------------------------
    Thats how capture locations works in Total War Arena. it favors another cancer meta. When most armoured/HP stuffed units holds locations. And thats buying time for fresh units join the fight for location.
    So who`s took locations first, will be in bigger advantage.
  • SullatellaSullatella Registered Users Posts: 13

    sure it needs actual testing... I think forcing to scrap for points wouldn't be a good design, they are already a victory condition... Also just adding to initial remarks, I also feel like units should only be able to cap/decap when there are no enemies in the capping area. Again to favor more "win the engagement, then cap", which again would be a bit more total war and less absurd meat grinder.

    --------------------------------
    Thats how locations work in Total War Arena. But it makes another cancer meta. That Big units with gigantic numbers of hp will hold until reinforcements come.
    So there will be even harder tug of war system and loosing side will be in bigger disadvantage.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    sure it needs actual testing... I think forcing to scrap for points wouldn't be a good design, they are already a victory condition... Also just adding to initial remarks, I also feel like units should only be able to cap/decap when there are no enemies in the capping area. Again to favor more "win the engagement, then cap", which again would be a bit more total war and less absurd meat grinder.

    --------------------------------
    Thats how locations work in Total War Arena. But it makes another cancer meta. That Big units with gigantic numbers of hp will hold until reinforcements come.
    So there will be even harder tug of war system and loosing side will be in bigger disadvantage.

    Yea, and I'd push in another step forward and say you're not capping if you stand in the area and are being shot at using the same reasoning. You're not controlling an objective if you stand on it and die, you're just dying on it...

    Firstly, I think it's important that the victory condition is first and foremost to win the actual battle, and not on how many points you can farm.

    Secondly, I think it's equally important that we can deploy our army all at once so that we can set up proper deployments, protect flanks, harass, flank overload etc. All these things are important in a proper tactical battle between two armies.

    The current tug-of-war kind of gameplay I am sure can be a fun distraction, but I don't think it's a solid base to build the multiplayer experience on, especially not if we want a thriving competitive scene that generates entertaining content. The streams from yesterday was not the least entertaining to me. We really need full army deployments for that, so tweaked capture point mechanics introduced in traditional land battles would be a really good starting point for competitive play. The current implementation of domination would fit perfectly together with FFA and siege battles in custom games, and why not as a queue option in quick play for a more casual experience that is not connected to the ladder.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Sindri_TWAC#7322Sindri_TWAC#7322 Registered Users Posts: 158
    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,508
    edited January 28

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    No, I think mostly people had very strong opinions about how exactly it was implemented.
    Post edited by eumaies#1128 on
  • Sindri_TWAC#7322Sindri_TWAC#7322 Registered Users Posts: 158
    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    No, I think mostly people had very strong opinions about how exactly it was implemented.
    May i refresh your memory then:

    My post from Nov. 2020 [...] I have several suggestions to solve these.

    a) Make multiplayer objective based. Add a flag to capture in the middle of the map and already the enemy won't be able to simply run around the map for 20 minutes.[...]

    The answers:

    Outrage4:
    "All of the "cheesy builds" are nulified by unit caps already.

    [....]

    Full kite armies are rarely seen in tournaments because they are incredibly hard to execute against good players.
    "

    Lotus-Moon:
    "I palyed vs all infantry few tiems today, was so boring that i hope it never happens again, its heavily seems you are trying to force your idea of fun onto others"

    "Gotta say i 100% played vs more all infantry rush than vs any kind of draw kitting."

    Me in 2018:

    Though i think adding 1 objective on the map might favour other tanky factions too much, like Chaos Wariors or Dwarfs? Maybe holding multiple objectives at the same time or capturing them in a raw like some conquest game mode from Battlefield games, could be sort of fun, would also add diversity too map play, and allow for counterplay to some tankier factions.

    Answers:
    Yst:
    "Nah, enough of flagshogun, was a huge blessing it didnt carry over and make this flaghammer. Everything will simply turn on flag camping and spear circles there. If the camping in game isnt bad enough, it will turn the entire game into just that lol.

    Nothing but silvershield inf cheesing cap points, gonna be boring af tbh. For factions like vamps, they gonna have real lots of funs hitting cap points with multiple giants standing there. Then itll devolve into noobs qqing about their entire army getting wiped by pits lol........."

    Lotus Moon:
    "Shogun MP is different than Warhammer MP should not try make it the same, shogun was more about social MP from the sounds of it, warhammer at least TT was more about competitive MP while having seperate social MP side to it."

    Another proposition from nonentity:

    Place a capture point on the map (similar to the town square in sieges) and have a countdown timer when one player holds it uncontested.

    Answers:

    Lotus Moon:
    "This has been discussed numerous times, but this is not a solution it just fixes that issue but creates new ones.

    It also makes most of the battlefield irrelevant, what the point of forests around the map if all you need to do is stay in the middle, might as-well make all battle fields super small or just have 1 battle field only, terrain would be of no importance with cupture point in the middle."

    "There were other arguments such as not the whole map being used, i think there are other solutions than capture point which are better as stated in that thread."

    "Whats preventing me from bringing an extremly boxy army than waiting in the forest until the capture point appears to thsn go on top of it and win?"

    "allariel, 4 treekin, 2 treemen, ROR spearmen some archers camping in the middles preventing the opponent from entering the zone, this is going to be fun....

    Like the previous solution this encourages boxed up armies to stay in the middle, it discourages the use of the whole map it also makes terrain features on certain maps worthless, there is nothing wrong with camping terrain at the moment but under this system you're forced to contest the middle or simply loose the game.."

    also
    "There is an issue with rampage at 20min, if opponent has lots missiles you just run away for 20min than win by forcing his units to rampage into combat."

    "Capture points also make 90% of the map irrelevant.

    Its a bad system and you keep pushing it for some reason. Capture points have plenty of flaws and promote static game play and increase ways to win through cheesing. [..]

    I think this idea is flowed greatly."

    "Capture point is in middle, no reason to move away from middle common sense logic applies here. One army camps it the other either goes and fights it or looses the game, why would you use the rest of the map? If the objective is in the middle.
    If your getting drawn out of position you simply regroup into the middle.

    Your wrong actually i always attack people with my mobile armies and i have means to make them move through ranged fire, if they stand still i will create enough of an advantage to win from it, i could not vs a box though.

    Its tank builds that would currently mot be able to win but can under your system.

    You can test it with other i think its total waste of time i did blob armies plenty of times before and its boring way to win under this system it just promotes those builds."

    Sarmatianns:

    "It's a bad idea. It boosts factions like dwarfs and in general makes 'tankiness' the most desirable attribute.

    Factions that rely on mobility and hit&run and similar stuff would be severely handicapped by this rule."

    "What you don't seem to understand how fundamentaly you change the entire gameplay if you suddenly motivate people not to build their army to kill the enemy but to outlast the enemy.

    I'd rather suffer a few drawkiters than have a system which encourages EVERY MATCH to be a slow 20 minutes brawl."

    Some of these were under YOUR thread. Doesn't sound like healthy ideas on implemtation of capture points - more like, some people don't like the idea, becouse they love mobile kite play.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,508
    heh, yes i remember well how my very modest capture point suggestions were attacked. But well now they are staring the end of their game mode in the face which tends to bring people to the bargaining table.

    and all that said, after all the sturm and drang, i do think most of those people were arguing for or came around to a general ok-ness with some kind of low-impact cap point that kicked in late in the game.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,508
    This was a nice domination battle and nice to see a more open/different map. I still feel the players may be a bit more frantic/trickly than they need to be, but the tactics were looking on the more interesting side.



  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    they were completely right though. capture points has turned the game into a confused brawl, its feels like an arcade game not a strategy game. And any "fix" came with the risk of toxic players trying to abuse it. even the capture point that only becomes relevant end of game might lead to some asshat trying to wait it out and build an army for that final showdown, and you risk making cheesy tactics even more common
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,377

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
  • yst#1879yst#1879 Registered Users Posts: 9,975
    The current dom mode is far from anything that has ever come near any total war game.

    No totalwar game has
    -flyers
    -spells
    -monsters in so many forms, monster inf, monster cav, single monster

    with all the given info, dom is now a semi flag cap game. Someone can still win their game being vastly inferior in army str, even having their front line wiped.



    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Sindri_TWAC#7322Sindri_TWAC#7322 Registered Users Posts: 158

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
    What i find particulary intresting is, that people, who thrown away any word on cap points or any other consistent fix on draw kiting in the past, are now asking for land battles with capture points. Why not stay consistent and demand land battles from wh2 to stay a ranking MP mode?

    In reality it is as simpe as that though -we have seen only couple of matches so far in a game mode, none of us themselves played with factions none of us really knows. Show a Wh 2 match to someone, who sees it for the first time- and he won't be impressed at all. It's a niche thing, that we are all just used to. We love watching replays and tourneys mostly becouse we know, how the game and MP in particular functions. I reserve the final judgement on Domination for the future, but can already say, that barely anything could be worse, then a game without any rules at all, becouse rules kind of make any game, what it is.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,508

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
    What i find particulary intresting is, that people, who thrown away any word on cap points or any other consistent fix on draw kiting in the past, are now asking for land battles with capture points. Why not stay consistent and demand land battles from wh2 to stay a ranking MP mode?

    In reality it is as simpe as that though -we have seen only couple of matches so far in a game mode, none of us themselves played with factions none of us really knows. Show a Wh 2 match to someone, who sees it for the first time- and he won't be impressed at all. It's a niche thing, that we are all just used to. We love watching replays and tourneys mostly becouse we know, how the game and MP in particular functions. I reserve the final judgement on Domination for the future, but can already say, that barely anything could be worse, then a game without any rules at all, becouse rules kind of make any game, what it is.
    Obviously because everyone came around in believing cap points were a good and necessary solution to draw kiting and other issues with land battles and to avoid complex tournament rules. I mean people are allowed to reach a consensus on something even though they may have complained or had other suggestions in the past.

    As for what "someone" would like, I think lots of players of Total War would look at Land battles and say "that's the kind of battles I enjoy in campaign".

    Now Domination doesn't have to be too different from that; it really comes down to the details of implementation. But since Land Battles are a supported game mode, it only makes sense they should have some internal logic to them, just like Sieges and FFA do.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,508
    I hope domination is strictly superior, adds a lot of new players in a sustainable way, and most of all that I enjoy playing it. That's all TBD. But there's no reason for land battles to have a glaring gap of a win condition since many people know they like playing Land Battles.
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,275
    capture points are fine in most situsltions but reinforcements are crap there literally turning this in to another rts


    well if that is the case than lets build defensive structures mid battle and requirtment buildings so people specially new players don't get spawned camped by players

    Like how turin did to sotek , people use brains for once tell me why i can not just bring a hard counter army and rush and spawn camp the enemy

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • JustSurpriseMeJustSurpriseMe Registered Users Posts: 37
    Overall the domination mode looks like an improvement that removes many of the flaws of the old battle system. CA has also rather obviously designed things based around the new mode--things like the skullcannon and barrier mechanic would be cancerous in traditional MP while reasonable in Domination, which shows the great potential of the mode.

    I'm mostly a fan of it with the two minor issues of reinforcements and resummoning. For reinforcements, it's the rather simple issue of me thinking some reinforcement points are a bit too close to the front lines. Watching the games played so far, I've repeatedly seen artillery left isolated in the backline, some fast mover unit jumping on the exposed piece, and then the artillery player just teleports in a defensive unit on top of the artillery. There's an argument to be made that this improves the skill ceiling of the game by raising the ability of players to react, but I worry that it will dilute the value of positioning and formations.

    As for resummoning, I worry it might reduce options too much. For some units it may prove cost inefficient to resummon, but for others it means that sniping based strategies or attritional plays might no longer be viable, which reduces the ways players can win. Cheap casters especially benefit, since if they're exposed sniping them no longer cuts your opponent off from the winds of magic resource.

    I'd like to reemphasize that I do think the mode is a great improvement and hope to be proven wrong about the gameplay implications of these two potential issues.
  • Sindri_TWAC#7322Sindri_TWAC#7322 Registered Users Posts: 158
    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
    What i find particulary intresting is, that people, who thrown away any word on cap points or any other consistent fix on draw kiting in the past, are now asking for land battles with capture points. Why not stay consistent and demand land battles from wh2 to stay a ranking MP mode?

    In reality it is as simpe as that though -we have seen only couple of matches so far in a game mode, none of us themselves played with factions none of us really knows. Show a Wh 2 match to someone, who sees it for the first time- and he won't be impressed at all. It's a niche thing, that we are all just used to. We love watching replays and tourneys mostly becouse we know, how the game and MP in particular functions. I reserve the final judgement on Domination for the future, but can already say, that barely anything could be worse, then a game without any rules at all, becouse rules kind of make any game, what it is.
    Obviously because everyone came around in believing cap points were a good and necessary solution to draw kiting and other issues with land battles and to avoid complex tournament rules. I mean people are allowed to reach a consensus on something even though they may have complained or had other suggestions in the past.

    As for what "someone" would like, I think lots of players of Total War would look at Land battles and say "that's the kind of battles I enjoy in campaign".

    Now Domination doesn't have to be too different from that; it really comes down to the details of implementation. But since Land Battles are a supported game mode, it only makes sense they should have some internal logic to them, just like Sieges and FFA do.
    Well it realy actualy might spoil it to some players. I honestly don't understand why would players, who prefer Wh2 styled battles need capture point in normal land battles now? Since "only noobs get draw kited" and "only 200 IQ people can use flying SEM in combination with cav and skirmishers" anyway.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
    What i find particulary intresting is, that people, who thrown away any word on cap points or any other consistent fix on draw kiting in the past, are now asking for land battles with capture points. Why not stay consistent and demand land battles from wh2 to stay a ranking MP mode?

    In reality it is as simpe as that though -we have seen only couple of matches so far in a game mode, none of us themselves played with factions none of us really knows. Show a Wh 2 match to someone, who sees it for the first time- and he won't be impressed at all. It's a niche thing, that we are all just used to. We love watching replays and tourneys mostly becouse we know, how the game and MP in particular functions. I reserve the final judgement on Domination for the future, but can already say, that barely anything could be worse, then a game without any rules at all, becouse rules kind of make any game, what it is.
    Obviously because everyone came around in believing cap points were a good and necessary solution to draw kiting and other issues with land battles and to avoid complex tournament rules. I mean people are allowed to reach a consensus on something even though they may have complained or had other suggestions in the past.

    As for what "someone" would like, I think lots of players of Total War would look at Land battles and say "that's the kind of battles I enjoy in campaign".

    Now Domination doesn't have to be too different from that; it really comes down to the details of implementation. But since Land Battles are a supported game mode, it only makes sense they should have some internal logic to them, just like Sieges and FFA do.
    Well it realy actualy might spoil it to some players. I honestly don't understand why would players, who prefer Wh2 styled battles need capture point in normal land battles now? Since "only noobs get draw kited" and "only 200 IQ people can use flying SEM in combination with cav and skirmishers" anyway.
    You haven't paid attention it seems. I even made my own suggestion of how Domination could be implemented waaaay back, but it's hard to find it now with the search function because I called it "domination" as well...

    There has always been a good reason to have an alternative way to end non-participation matches. I think more or less everyone agrees, but there are different opinions about the details how it's best implemented.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,377

    Overall the domination mode looks like an improvement that removes many of the flaws of the old battle system. CA has also rather obviously designed things based around the new mode--things like the skullcannon and barrier mechanic would be cancerous in traditional MP while reasonable in Domination, which shows the great potential of the mode.

    I'm mostly a fan of it with the two minor issues of reinforcements and resummoning. For reinforcements, it's the rather simple issue of me thinking some reinforcement points are a bit too close to the front lines. Watching the games played so far, I've repeatedly seen artillery left isolated in the backline, some fast mover unit jumping on the exposed piece, and then the artillery player just teleports in a defensive unit on top of the artillery. There's an argument to be made that this improves the skill ceiling of the game by raising the ability of players to react, but I worry that it will dilute the value of positioning and formations.

    As for resummoning, I worry it might reduce options too much. For some units it may prove cost inefficient to resummon, but for others it means that sniping based strategies or attritional plays might no longer be viable, which reduces the ways players can win. Cheap casters especially benefit, since if they're exposed sniping them no longer cuts your opponent off from the winds of magic resource.

    I'd like to reemphasize that I do think the mode is a great improvement and hope to be proven wrong about the gameplay implications of these two potential issues.

    Resummoning is a tough one, cause if you allow all units except lords/heroes to be resummoned then you make sniping strategies almost inevitably the best ones. And game 2 has had massive issues with sniping/gooning strategies so can see why they went the way they did.

    I did see a tooltip in a loading screen that said something like "Units cannot rally if they do not have a lord on the field" so at least there may have been other things introduced to make losing your lord a meaningful loss (on top of having to pay the cost of bringing them back if you lose them).
  • Sindri_TWAC#7322Sindri_TWAC#7322 Registered Users Posts: 158

    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
    What i find particulary intresting is, that people, who thrown away any word on cap points or any other consistent fix on draw kiting in the past, are now asking for land battles with capture points. Why not stay consistent and demand land battles from wh2 to stay a ranking MP mode?

    In reality it is as simpe as that though -we have seen only couple of matches so far in a game mode, none of us themselves played with factions none of us really knows. Show a Wh 2 match to someone, who sees it for the first time- and he won't be impressed at all. It's a niche thing, that we are all just used to. We love watching replays and tourneys mostly becouse we know, how the game and MP in particular functions. I reserve the final judgement on Domination for the future, but can already say, that barely anything could be worse, then a game without any rules at all, becouse rules kind of make any game, what it is.
    Obviously because everyone came around in believing cap points were a good and necessary solution to draw kiting and other issues with land battles and to avoid complex tournament rules. I mean people are allowed to reach a consensus on something even though they may have complained or had other suggestions in the past.

    As for what "someone" would like, I think lots of players of Total War would look at Land battles and say "that's the kind of battles I enjoy in campaign".

    Now Domination doesn't have to be too different from that; it really comes down to the details of implementation. But since Land Battles are a supported game mode, it only makes sense they should have some internal logic to them, just like Sieges and FFA do.
    Well it realy actualy might spoil it to some players. I honestly don't understand why would players, who prefer Wh2 styled battles need capture point in normal land battles now? Since "only noobs get draw kited" and "only 200 IQ people can use flying SEM in combination with cav and skirmishers" anyway.
    You haven't paid attention it seems. I even made my own suggestion of how Domination could be implemented waaaay back, but it's hard to find it now with the search function because I called it "domination" as well...

    There has always been a good reason to have an alternative way to end non-participation matches. I think more or less everyone agrees, but there are different opinions about the details how it's best implemented.
    Yeah i paid attention alright. I recall- "Make it so infantry can't capture point as long it's beeing shot at". Sounds strange to say the least, but the intention is obvious.....
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
    What i find particulary intresting is, that people, who thrown away any word on cap points or any other consistent fix on draw kiting in the past, are now asking for land battles with capture points. Why not stay consistent and demand land battles from wh2 to stay a ranking MP mode?

    In reality it is as simpe as that though -we have seen only couple of matches so far in a game mode, none of us themselves played with factions none of us really knows. Show a Wh 2 match to someone, who sees it for the first time- and he won't be impressed at all. It's a niche thing, that we are all just used to. We love watching replays and tourneys mostly becouse we know, how the game and MP in particular functions. I reserve the final judgement on Domination for the future, but can already say, that barely anything could be worse, then a game without any rules at all, becouse rules kind of make any game, what it is.
    Obviously because everyone came around in believing cap points were a good and necessary solution to draw kiting and other issues with land battles and to avoid complex tournament rules. I mean people are allowed to reach a consensus on something even though they may have complained or had other suggestions in the past.

    As for what "someone" would like, I think lots of players of Total War would look at Land battles and say "that's the kind of battles I enjoy in campaign".

    Now Domination doesn't have to be too different from that; it really comes down to the details of implementation. But since Land Battles are a supported game mode, it only makes sense they should have some internal logic to them, just like Sieges and FFA do.
    Well it realy actualy might spoil it to some players. I honestly don't understand why would players, who prefer Wh2 styled battles need capture point in normal land battles now? Since "only noobs get draw kited" and "only 200 IQ people can use flying SEM in combination with cav and skirmishers" anyway.
    You haven't paid attention it seems. I even made my own suggestion of how Domination could be implemented waaaay back, but it's hard to find it now with the search function because I called it "domination" as well...

    There has always been a good reason to have an alternative way to end non-participation matches. I think more or less everyone agrees, but there are different opinions about the details how it's best implemented.
    Yeah i paid attention alright. I recall- "Make it so infantry can't capture point as long it's beeing shot at". Sounds strange to say the least, but the intention is obvious.....
    No, it makes perfect sense. Even orclads said afterwards that he changed his mind on it and agrees with it.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,377

    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
    What i find particulary intresting is, that people, who thrown away any word on cap points or any other consistent fix on draw kiting in the past, are now asking for land battles with capture points. Why not stay consistent and demand land battles from wh2 to stay a ranking MP mode?

    In reality it is as simpe as that though -we have seen only couple of matches so far in a game mode, none of us themselves played with factions none of us really knows. Show a Wh 2 match to someone, who sees it for the first time- and he won't be impressed at all. It's a niche thing, that we are all just used to. We love watching replays and tourneys mostly becouse we know, how the game and MP in particular functions. I reserve the final judgement on Domination for the future, but can already say, that barely anything could be worse, then a game without any rules at all, becouse rules kind of make any game, what it is.
    Obviously because everyone came around in believing cap points were a good and necessary solution to draw kiting and other issues with land battles and to avoid complex tournament rules. I mean people are allowed to reach a consensus on something even though they may have complained or had other suggestions in the past.

    As for what "someone" would like, I think lots of players of Total War would look at Land battles and say "that's the kind of battles I enjoy in campaign".

    Now Domination doesn't have to be too different from that; it really comes down to the details of implementation. But since Land Battles are a supported game mode, it only makes sense they should have some internal logic to them, just like Sieges and FFA do.
    Well it realy actualy might spoil it to some players. I honestly don't understand why would players, who prefer Wh2 styled battles need capture point in normal land battles now? Since "only noobs get draw kited" and "only 200 IQ people can use flying SEM in combination with cav and skirmishers" anyway.
    You haven't paid attention it seems. I even made my own suggestion of how Domination could be implemented waaaay back, but it's hard to find it now with the search function because I called it "domination" as well...

    There has always been a good reason to have an alternative way to end non-participation matches. I think more or less everyone agrees, but there are different opinions about the details how it's best implemented.
    Yeah i paid attention alright. I recall- "Make it so infantry can't capture point as long it's beeing shot at". Sounds strange to say the least, but the intention is obvious.....
    No, it makes perfect sense. Even orclads said afterwards that he changed his mind on it and agrees with it.
    Not what I said at all just what you heard.

    I said (paraphrasing) "I have changed my mind that there can never be a justification for ranged attacks stopping capping points it depends on overall implementation".

    The specific example you gave recreated the same toxic kiteplay we have now so I wasn't a fan. But in principle, there could be a design for capture points in some games where it would make sense for shooting to stop capping points.
Sign In or Register to comment.