A Plea To CA Balancing Team. Please Balance SP and MP Separately.

sendemail

Just to start, love what I've seen so far from Warhammer 3, fantastic job!

Unfortunately this means that some of the things I have seen that I enjoy as a Campaign focused player will likely be changed in the name of balance for Multiplayer, which is fine but not when it doesn't make sense to apply it across the board. The coding and effort required to keep two separate states at this point may be useless to ask for but I'll give it a go anyways in case its doable within reason.

The spells so far seem to have more impact and buffed since TWW2, this may be because unit size is balanced around Ultra now, or maybe the team felt releasing a new title was a opportunity to redo the whole system right. I've already seen Early Access players talk about changes needed to certain stats and spells for competitive play, which is fine but please for the love of god don't automatically apply these to Campaign.

I get that CA might want to have a uniform experience so players can jump between the two modes without having to relearn things, but this is kinda moot because what works in Campaign if vastly different to what works in Multiplayer. Elite infantry rarely get used, Anything susceptible to becoming a pincushion is also usually avoided, there are unit caps, fixed budget and so many more differences that its pretty much a separate game in terms of how its played, you will have to relearn a lot of things anyways. This is my argument against the idea of having to relearn if the Balance is separate.

The things that make Campaign fun like powerful spells and epic armies/units are really neutered when balances changes are made just for the competitive side. Dragons in TWW2 felt like slightly above average SEM's rather than Epic monsters of legend, a lot spells felt pitiful and weak. Summons like rats who tunnel out of a hole vanishing and every creature having the same regen limit or having a regen limit at all.

I wish CA would balance around increasing unit cost or winds of magic cost over these very lore unfriendly anti-immersion changes. Lot's of units already don't see play because they are cost inefficient, it wouldn't be a major change to what already exists.

if nothing else I do have a solution that would be minimalistic in requirement, please add something in the tech tree or skills tree to undo the nerf and put it back into its pre nerf state, maybe even make it a passive so as not to have to spend points or combine it into an existing skill/tech.

Fantastic job with the sequel either way, Rarely is a sequel released these days that is better than the originals.

TLDR: Just the title.

eumaies#1128

So….

The spells are all over the map. As a campaign player I don’t want a few spells OP and most spells terrible. I want … balance. And that’s the same for mp and sp.

As for other balancing I support balancing units mostly on mp price for mp. That doesn’t affect sp at all.

eumaies#1128

TLDR it’s mostly a fantasy that your sp game is unbalanced or unloreful because of mp balancing. The game is unbalanced or units randomly suck because of neglect of balance across the board.

sendemail

eumaies said:

So….

The spells are all over the map. As a campaign player I don’t want a few spells OP and most spells terrible. I want … balance. And that’s the same for mp and sp.

As for other balancing I support balancing units mostly on mp price for mp. That doesn’t affect sp at all.

Agreed on both points, I'm not saying don't balance Campaign, just don't base its balancing off multiplayer which is a totally different animal.

sendemail

eumaies said:

TLDR it’s mostly a fantasy that your sp game is unbalanced or unloreful because of mp balancing. The game is unbalanced or units randomly suck because of neglect of balance across the board.

I'll have to disagree with you there, losing a battle in SP because a skyjunk is your last unrouted unit is definately "unloreful" and unrealistic.

Not gonna give blame for neglect of balancing, reality is they have limited time and resource I get that, just asking they dont make it worse.

Sarmatianns#6760

sendemail said:

eumaies said:

So….

The spells are all over the map. As a campaign player I don’t want a few spells OP and most spells terrible. I want … balance. And that’s the same for mp and sp.

As for other balancing I support balancing units mostly on mp price for mp. That doesn’t affect sp at all.

Agreed on both points, I'm not saying don't balance Campaign, just don't base its balancing off multiplayer which is a totally different animal.

While it might be nice to have separate balancing, I don't really think CA will ever split them.

Furthermore, 99% MP balance tweaks don't generally affect campaign at all. A -2 MD here, +1 WS strenght there, -25 gold recruitment price...

There are few example of balance changes that affect campaign, like healing cap establishment in game 1, max 4 units that can be healed in game 2... but I would argue they are good for the campaign as well. It is a strategy game, and HP is one of the most important unit attributes. We shouldn't be able to game the system by essentially restoring HP completely by using a free, self replenishing pool.

sendemail

Sarmatianns said:

sendemail said:

eumaies said:

So….

The spells are all over the map. As a campaign player I don’t want a few spells OP and most spells terrible. I want … balance. And that’s the same for mp and sp.

As for other balancing I support balancing units mostly on mp price for mp. That doesn’t affect sp at all.

Agreed on both points, I'm not saying don't balance Campaign, just don't base its balancing off multiplayer which is a totally different animal.

While it might be nice to have separate balancing, I don't really think CA will ever split them.

Furthermore, 99% MP balance tweaks don't generally affect campaign at all. A -2 MD here, +1 WS strenght there, -25 gold recruitment price...

There are few example of balance changes that affect campaign, like healing cap establishment in game 1, max 4 units that can be healed in game 2... but I would argue they are good for the campaign as well. It is a strategy game, and HP is one of the most important unit attributes. We shouldn't be able to game the system by essentially restoring HP completely by using a free, self replenishing pool.

If Nuclear Bombs, Clan Eshin Murder Mysteries, Wood Elf Teleport/Arrows of Krounos, Waagh armies, Tourox infinite movement, Black Arks/VC ship cities, Mortis engine item/ability spam, Rites, and the Myriad of other things being introduced in WH3 didn't exist, I might be inclined to agree with you that giving a race the ability not having a healing cap is "gaming" the system. Campaign isn't meant to balanced around the same philosophy. :P

Small adjustments to stats are not the end of the world, but over time they do add up if they seem to be performing too well and have cumulative nerfs. A big change from MP for example is when you don't have enough of anti-large or a Missile line to take out a very heavy mass enemy it makes sense to nerf that for multiplayer, but that change there heavily affects how they perform vs large amount of infantry in the regular Campaign battles where it's totally different.

goremand

What about MP campaign players? CA is pushing that mode for WH3, it will be more popular for sure.

sendemail

goremand said:

What about MP campaign players? CA is pushing that mode for WH3, it will be more popular for sure.

Would still require Non-Competitive Multiplayer Balancing because of faction/campaign mechanics. Say they nerf -4 MA on a unit for Pure MP but the faction through skill trees/tech and other buffs added 20 MA, that kinda thing didn't exist in Pure MP so the balance change wouldn't make a difference. Might not even be one to one where you could argue at least its making some effort to fix it, it could be asymmetrical where that -4 MA doesn't matter in campaign because they have a Mortis Engine effect.

Also in my last post I mentioned all the different and VERY FUN!(don't nerf em please :P) unique campaign mechanics that make balancing the two like they are the same environment become silly.

Sarmatianns#6760

sendemail said:

Sarmatianns said:

sendemail said:

eumaies said:

So….

The spells are all over the map. As a campaign player I don’t want a few spells OP and most spells terrible. I want … balance. And that’s the same for mp and sp.

As for other balancing I support balancing units mostly on mp price for mp. That doesn’t affect sp at all.

Agreed on both points, I'm not saying don't balance Campaign, just don't base its balancing off multiplayer which is a totally different animal.

While it might be nice to have separate balancing, I don't really think CA will ever split them.

Furthermore, 99% MP balance tweaks don't generally affect campaign at all. A -2 MD here, +1 WS strenght there, -25 gold recruitment price...

There are few example of balance changes that affect campaign, like healing cap establishment in game 1, max 4 units that can be healed in game 2... but I would argue they are good for the campaign as well. It is a strategy game, and HP is one of the most important unit attributes. We shouldn't be able to game the system by essentially restoring HP completely by using a free, self replenishing pool.

If Nuclear Bombs, Clan Eshin Murder Mysteries, Wood Elf Teleport/Arrows of Krounos, Waagh armies, Tourox infinite movement, Black Arks/VC ship cities, Mortis engine item/ability spam, Rites, and the Myriad of other things being introduced in WH3 didn't exist, I might be inclined to agree with you that giving a race the ability not having a healing cap is "gaming" the system. Campaign isn't meant to balanced around the same philosophy. :P

If I understood you correctly, your argument is that since there are a plethora of extremely powerful campaign mechanics, we should have more of them and/or not nerf a single one?

Small adjustments to stats are not the end of the world, but over time they do add up if they seem to be performing too well and have cumulative nerfs. A big change from MP for example is when you don't have enough of anti-large or a Missile line to take out a very heavy mass enemy it makes sense to nerf that for multiplayer, but that change there heavily affects how they perform vs large amount of infantry in the regular Campaign battles where it's totally different.

I'm not sure I understood you correctly - what is the specific change you are talking about?

And what was the consequence of it? SEMs are too weak in campaign now?

goremand

sendemail said:

goremand said:

What about MP campaign players? CA is pushing that mode for WH3, it will be more popular for sure.

Would still require Non-Competitive Multiplayer Balancing because of faction/campaign mechanics. Say they nerf -4 MA on a unit for Pure MP but the faction through skill trees/tech and other buffs added 20 MA, that kinda thing didn't exist in Pure MP so the balance change wouldn't make a difference. Might not even be one to one where you could argue at least its making some effort to fix it, it could be asymmetrical where that -4 MA doesn't matter in campaign because they have a Mortis Engine effect.

Also in my last post I mentioned all the different and VERY FUN!(don't nerf em please :P) unique campaign mechanics that make balancing the two like they are the same environment become silly.

I guess I'm just a bit suspicious, to me when people say "please balance SP separately" it often sounds like what they mean is "please don't balance SP at all". Skills, tech and other campaign mechanics are not an immutable "environment", they are just part of the puzzle like everything else.

Jman5#8318

goremand said:

sendemail said:

goremand said:

What about MP campaign players? CA is pushing that mode for WH3, it will be more popular for sure.

Would still require Non-Competitive Multiplayer Balancing because of faction/campaign mechanics. Say they nerf -4 MA on a unit for Pure MP but the faction through skill trees/tech and other buffs added 20 MA, that kinda thing didn't exist in Pure MP so the balance change wouldn't make a difference. Might not even be one to one where you could argue at least its making some effort to fix it, it could be asymmetrical where that -4 MA doesn't matter in campaign because they have a Mortis Engine effect.

Also in my last post I mentioned all the different and VERY FUN!(don't nerf em please :P) unique campaign mechanics that make balancing the two like they are the same environment become silly.

I guess I'm just a bit suspicious, to me when people say "please balance SP separately" it often sounds like what they mean is "please don't balance SP at all". Skills, tech and other campaign mechanics are not an immutable "environment", they are just part of the puzzle like everything else.

Just another power-fantasy type whose idea of balance is: Let's powercreep everything into the Sun.

To be perfectly honest I actually wouldn't be against separate balance. But I would like separate single-player balance. We could have Power-Fantasy Mode: where everything is super-charged like they want. Then we could have a Balanced Mode, where we actually try to balance the campaign. Nerfs and all.

The simple fact of the matter is that there seems to be two different type of players who want very different things from their campaign. In my opinion it's irreconcilable and the only solution are two different sets of game rules.

RawSugar#1229

ye i cant really think of any changes you'd make that would balance MP and wouldnt improve balance in SP - except maybe really bad balancing of melee/ranged to bandaid AIs inability to play with or against ranged units....but thats really better taken care off with a campaign mechanic like damage reduction - if not better armies/skirmishing.
Anything else is just "dont make these OP units balanced" which...just use mods if you dont want a balanced game.

mightygloin#2446

They are already seperately balanced? In MP you have different pricing and caps. In SP units become quickly indistinguishable anyway due to buffstacking.

sendemail said:

The things that make Campaign fun like powerful spells and epic armies/units are really neutered when balances changes are made just for the competitive side. Dragons in TWW2 felt like slightly above average SEM's rather than Epic monsters of legend, a lot spells felt pitiful and weak.

Speak for yourself. Not everybody adores destroying armies with a few spells (which is already possible tho) and watching battles turn into monster doomstacks duke it out.

Dragons weren't even solo entities in the original source, but only mounts. In this game they are spammable SEMs. You want them to even be stronger? A dragon stack is already hardly stoppable.

There is a laboratory mode if you need even more braindead power fantasy.

sendemail

A lot of words getting shoved into my mouth so I guess ill just do a point form of what I'm trying to say to counter all the assumption being thrown around. People seem to have missed or not read the intentions on the original post.

-Didn't say don't nerf campaign at all
-Didn't say make campaign a power fantasy
-Did say that balance decisions in a totally different game mode with different variables doesn't make sense in the other, you are really not thinking it through if you don't see that.
-Did say avoid balances changes based off MP that are Immersion breaking in SP(listed many like losing if no ground units)

This is the only real full fantasy Total War that makes sense for things to be over the top and epic, I'd get what you are all arguing if it was in the other settings. Maybe if I can't convince or explain to all the people posting to see that I guess I don't have a shot at changing the Dev's mind.

WH3 looks great and I'll be having fun with it either way and I hope you all do too! I'm gonna go back into posting hibernation.

RawSugar#1229

so i found 2 of your examples;
losing to no ground units; not an MP balance and could easily be MP exclusive but then you could never lose a campaign battle if you have a fast flying mount - as usual the mechanic balances both MP and SP
small stat changes: you dont really say how it ruins your campaign only that campaign should be fun and that small stats changes dont matter... if they dont matter then they dont ruin your campaign - in fact they improve it by making thegame more balanced up till the point where you get economy and bonuses going and balance no longer matter anyway.

I really dont see how having base stats of units be balanced in any way gets in the way of your fun, if anything it makes the game more enjoyable

OdTengri#8235

Tech's are for SP balance...

Raw Stats are for MP Balance...

Lotus_Moon#2452

OdTengri said:

Tech's are for SP balance...

Raw Stats are for MP Balance...

Yep but CA should balance those techs more

Emrysor

OdTengri said:

Tech's are for SP balance...

Raw Stats are for MP Balance...

That's fine except these techs are not at all balanced for every unit. If there was a reliable way to increase MA and MD for every unit in the tech tree, then I wouldn't complain. With ranged units this have never been an issue, but it is if you want to use melee infantry for anything other than line holders.

RawSugar#1229

there's too much stuff at play in campaign to begin to balance it at least without massive reliable data. A major factor is something like map placement, that can do more than any number of combat or economic bonuses. Economy is important but there are both rush economies and lategame economies - also are we talking the game played "normally" or by the weird ppl stacking hero bonuses including from disbanded ones.....

Even if a point of reference was agreed upon - say average might of army at turn 125 i think it would be difficult to even rank the factions.

I certainly dont have strong opinions about how the factions rank. Brettonia strongest and VC weakest probably but everything in between im not really sure, well maybe empire is among the weaker since the nerf with empirial points etc.

It'd be pointless to just look at combat bonuses as thats a relatively minor factor in faction balance

#568367

Yeah, no. I've seen what SP-only players consider as balance.

"If you make everything OP, nothing is OP lol!"


SP players can not be trusted to ever take part in balance because they lack any sense of it thanks to their "always buff never nerf"-mentality. **** even when suggesting adding a TOGGLE-ABLE unit cap to the campaign garners controversy and opposition from SP players lol.


It's almost like the Warframe playerbase sometimes.

Emrysor

GreenColoured said:

Yeah, no. I've seen what SP-only players consider as balance.

"If you make everything OP, nothing is OP lol!"


SP players can not be trusted to ever take part in balance because they lack any sense of it thanks to their "always buff never nerf"-mentality. **** even when suggesting adding a TOGGLE-ABLE unit cap to the campaign garners controversy and opposition from SP players lol.


It's almost like the Warframe playerbase sometimes.

The same can be said for MP only people. Melee is more better in MP than campaign. Missile units are usually better in SP than MP. Some units are **** units in SP no matter how you use them, while they have nieches in MP. If you just are going to nerf units overpeeforming in MP while letting other units like Ellyrion Reaver bows as it is, then it thenunit will have it's nieche in MP. But for SP that unit will be **** after turn 30. Also you are putting all SP people under one flag and that is a disgusting thing to do.

Sarmatianns#6760

Emrysor said:

GreenColoured said:

Yeah, no. I've seen what SP-only players consider as balance.

"If you make everything OP, nothing is OP lol!"


SP players can not be trusted to ever take part in balance because they lack any sense of it thanks to their "always buff never nerf"-mentality. **** even when suggesting adding a TOGGLE-ABLE unit cap to the campaign garners controversy and opposition from SP players lol.


It's almost like the Warframe playerbase sometimes.

The same can be said for MP only people. Melee is more better in MP than campaign. Missile units are usually better in SP than MP. Some units are **** units in SP no matter how you use them, while they have nieches in MP. If you just are going to nerf units overpeeforming in MP while letting other units like Ellyrion Reaver bows as it is, then it thenunit will have it's nieche in MP. But for SP that unit will be **** after turn 30. Also you are putting all SP people under one flag and that is a disgusting thing to do.

Ok, but that's not a problem of unit stats, but rather campaign progression where low tier units get less useful as campaign progresses.

That requires a campaign specific solution, like unit caps, for example... but, most campaign players don't want unit caps.

And missile units are useful in MP about the same as in SP. They only become more useful if one plays on difficulty higher then normal.

Jman5#8318

Sarmatianns said:

Emrysor said:

GreenColoured said:

Yeah, no. I've seen what SP-only players consider as balance.

"If you make everything OP, nothing is OP lol!"


SP players can not be trusted to ever take part in balance because they lack any sense of it thanks to their "always buff never nerf"-mentality. **** even when suggesting adding a TOGGLE-ABLE unit cap to the campaign garners controversy and opposition from SP players lol.


It's almost like the Warframe playerbase sometimes.

The same can be said for MP only people. Melee is more better in MP than campaign. Missile units are usually better in SP than MP. Some units are **** units in SP no matter how you use them, while they have nieches in MP. If you just are going to nerf units overpeeforming in MP while letting other units like Ellyrion Reaver bows as it is, then it thenunit will have it's nieche in MP. But for SP that unit will be **** after turn 30. Also you are putting all SP people under one flag and that is a disgusting thing to do.

Ok, but that's not a problem of unit stats, but rather campaign progression where low tier units get less useful as campaign progresses.

That requires a campaign specific solution, like unit caps, for example... but, most campaign players don't want unit caps.

And missile units are useful in MP about the same as in SP. They only become more useful if one plays on difficulty higher then normal.

Let's be clear here. Most campaign players would be perfectly happy with an optional unit cap in the game. Whenever CA adds them in to specific faction, they are well received and uncontroversial which means it's mostly just status-quo bias going on here. Polls done on the subject show that the anti-cap group is a significant minority. They're simply extremely vocal, which gives the illusion that they are the majority opinion.

Sarmatianns#6760

Yeah, ok. I'm not arguing for or against unit caps in campaign.

RawSugar#1229

thats the other type of argument for balancing for SP: AI is **** at using and facing ranged, and so a lot of units are really bad or pointless in SP. Moreover the lack of caps make the majority of units pointless.

Im not even sure how you'd fix skirmishers. they are units that pay a lot to be hard for melee to reach, since AI is **** at targeting ranged you are losing fire power for an ability you dont really need. I guess they could be cheaper in SP? but that doesnt even help much because of the lack of caps.

The fix really should be in balancing mechanics/AI so that units stay relevant and all unittypes are useful. you COULD make crazy buffs to certain units to make up for AIs shortcomings but tbh whats needed is fixing AI - or at the very least difficulty penalties so they affect ranged - preferably more than melee

Emrysor

Sarmatianns said:

Emrysor said:

GreenColoured said:

Yeah, no. I've seen what SP-only players consider as balance.

"If you make everything OP, nothing is OP lol!"


SP players can not be trusted to ever take part in balance because they lack any sense of it thanks to their "always buff never nerf"-mentality. **** even when suggesting adding a TOGGLE-ABLE unit cap to the campaign garners controversy and opposition from SP players lol.


It's almost like the Warframe playerbase sometimes.

The same can be said for MP only people. Melee is more better in MP than campaign. Missile units are usually better in SP than MP. Some units are **** units in SP no matter how you use them, while they have nieches in MP. If you just are going to nerf units overpeeforming in MP while letting other units like Ellyrion Reaver bows as it is, then it thenunit will have it's nieche in MP. But for SP that unit will be **** after turn 30. Also you are putting all SP people under one flag and that is a disgusting thing to do.

Ok, but that's not a problem of unit stats, but rather campaign progression where low tier units get less useful as campaign progresses.

That requires a campaign specific solution, like unit caps, for example... but, most campaign players don't want unit caps.

And missile units are useful in MP about the same as in SP. They only become more useful if one plays on difficulty higher then normal.

Reaver archers are beyond crap after turn 30, no matter how much you try. Basic archer and spearman combo from HE can last fine into turn 100 and that are tier 0 units.

Most campaign players are fine with a soft cap like Tomb Kings, but against a strict hard cap in how an army should be built to detail. Missile units are more useful even on normal difficulty, but become a lot stronger on higher difficulty. Ranged > Melee is the norm.

saweendra#3399

Emrysor said:

Sarmatianns said:

Emrysor said:

GreenColoured said:

Yeah, no. I've seen what SP-only players consider as balance.

"If you make everything OP, nothing is OP lol!"


SP players can not be trusted to ever take part in balance because they lack any sense of it thanks to their "always buff never nerf"-mentality. **** even when suggesting adding a TOGGLE-ABLE unit cap to the campaign garners controversy and opposition from SP players lol.


It's almost like the Warframe playerbase sometimes.

The same can be said for MP only people. Melee is more better in MP than campaign. Missile units are usually better in SP than MP. Some units are **** units in SP no matter how you use them, while they have nieches in MP. If you just are going to nerf units overpeeforming in MP while letting other units like Ellyrion Reaver bows as it is, then it thenunit will have it's nieche in MP. But for SP that unit will be **** after turn 30. Also you are putting all SP people under one flag and that is a disgusting thing to do.

Ok, but that's not a problem of unit stats, but rather campaign progression where low tier units get less useful as campaign progresses.

That requires a campaign specific solution, like unit caps, for example... but, most campaign players don't want unit caps.

And missile units are useful in MP about the same as in SP. They only become more useful if one plays on difficulty higher then normal.

Reaver archers are beyond crap after turn 30, no matter how much you try. Basic archer and spearman combo from HE can last fine into turn 100 and that are tier 0 units.

Most campaign players are fine with a soft cap like Tomb Kings, but against a strict hard cap in how an army should be built to detail. Missile units are more useful even on normal difficulty, but become a lot stronger on higher difficulty. Ranged > Melee is the norm.

all of these unit are crap since well because there is no balance armies around , doom stacks one way or another .

and Optional caps are band aid solution this game need
1. more pop mechanics
2. AI need to be better at shutting range unit down so you are more requried to use mounted archers,

Emrysor

saweendra said:

Emrysor said:

Sarmatianns said:

Emrysor said:

GreenColoured said:

Yeah, no. I've seen what SP-only players consider as balance.

"If you make everything OP, nothing is OP lol!"


SP players can not be trusted to ever take part in balance because they lack any sense of it thanks to their "always buff never nerf"-mentality. **** even when suggesting adding a TOGGLE-ABLE unit cap to the campaign garners controversy and opposition from SP players lol.


It's almost like the Warframe playerbase sometimes.

The same can be said for MP only people. Melee is more better in MP than campaign. Missile units are usually better in SP than MP. Some units are **** units in SP no matter how you use them, while they have nieches in MP. If you just are going to nerf units overpeeforming in MP while letting other units like Ellyrion Reaver bows as it is, then it thenunit will have it's nieche in MP. But for SP that unit will be **** after turn 30. Also you are putting all SP people under one flag and that is a disgusting thing to do.

Ok, but that's not a problem of unit stats, but rather campaign progression where low tier units get less useful as campaign progresses.

That requires a campaign specific solution, like unit caps, for example... but, most campaign players don't want unit caps.

And missile units are useful in MP about the same as in SP. They only become more useful if one plays on difficulty higher then normal.

Reaver archers are beyond crap after turn 30, no matter how much you try. Basic archer and spearman combo from HE can last fine into turn 100 and that are tier 0 units.

Most campaign players are fine with a soft cap like Tomb Kings, but against a strict hard cap in how an army should be built to detail. Missile units are more useful even on normal difficulty, but become a lot stronger on higher difficulty. Ranged > Melee is the norm.

all of these unit are crap since well because there is no balance armies around , doom stacks one way or another .

and Optional caps are band aid solution this game need
1. more pop mechanics
2. AI need to be better at shutting range unit down so you are more requried to use mounted archers,

2nd option is not happening unless there is a new engine or sone sort.

I agree with the first option IF supply lines gets removed.

saweendra#3399

Emrysor said:

saweendra said:

Emrysor said:

Sarmatianns said:

Emrysor said:

GreenColoured said:

Yeah, no. I've seen what SP-only players consider as balance.

"If you make everything OP, nothing is OP lol!"


SP players can not be trusted to ever take part in balance because they lack any sense of it thanks to their "always buff never nerf"-mentality. **** even when suggesting adding a TOGGLE-ABLE unit cap to the campaign garners controversy and opposition from SP players lol.


It's almost like the Warframe playerbase sometimes.

The same can be said for MP only people. Melee is more better in MP than campaign. Missile units are usually better in SP than MP. Some units are **** units in SP no matter how you use them, while they have nieches in MP. If you just are going to nerf units overpeeforming in MP while letting other units like Ellyrion Reaver bows as it is, then it thenunit will have it's nieche in MP. But for SP that unit will be **** after turn 30. Also you are putting all SP people under one flag and that is a disgusting thing to do.

Ok, but that's not a problem of unit stats, but rather campaign progression where low tier units get less useful as campaign progresses.

That requires a campaign specific solution, like unit caps, for example... but, most campaign players don't want unit caps.

And missile units are useful in MP about the same as in SP. They only become more useful if one plays on difficulty higher then normal.

Reaver archers are beyond crap after turn 30, no matter how much you try. Basic archer and spearman combo from HE can last fine into turn 100 and that are tier 0 units.

Most campaign players are fine with a soft cap like Tomb Kings, but against a strict hard cap in how an army should be built to detail. Missile units are more useful even on normal difficulty, but become a lot stronger on higher difficulty. Ranged > Melee is the norm.

all of these unit are crap since well because there is no balance armies around , doom stacks one way or another .

and Optional caps are band aid solution this game need
1. more pop mechanics
2. AI need to be better at shutting range unit down so you are more requried to use mounted archers,

2nd option is not happening unless there is a new engine or sone sort.

I agree with the first option IF supply lines gets removed.

its Ai improvements i don't think it has any baring on engine

supply lines need more nuance right now its just a waste of space its better off to actually implement pop mechanics across the board which will make campaign better than keeping it.

Frook

Low tier units will never get much use in later campaign like they do in MP because later units are strictly better in Warhammer. The reason being that power per slot is not only extremely important by default in campaign because you can have only 20 units in an army, the only cap against using stronger units is them costing more which you will inevitably be able to pay for later in campaign. Not only that, supply lines means that using cheaper units can actually cost you more, reinforcing doomstacks.

The way to deal with this would be to add unit caps to armies and remove supply lines. This way "core" units could always feel useful and can be balanced around even in SP because they are always going to make a fundamental and necessary part of your army. Otherwise, whatever "separate" balance you make for lower tier units in SP, a combination of slot efficiency and cost efficiency, which becomes same thing because of supply lines, will rule.

In MP this is not an issue because funds for a battle means you are usually capped by funds rather than slots, in which case you are going for cost efficiency & army composition as your main goals for making an army, in cases where this can be skewed for certain units there is also a unit cap. So the reason why SP suffers some issues isn't because MP balance of units, but rather MP doesn't suffer some issues of SP because of the way army creation works is different in MP.