5 years you've had, and a willing and able MP community to assist you.
I have something like 20,000 wins (and a similar amount of losses) in QB if you add up game 1 and 2.
It was fun, i enjoyed it.
You never quite knew what you were facing until you saw the troop count.
Day 1 of domination and im bored.
Artillery is pointless, it just runs out of ammo against the constant tide of reinforcements.
Your ladder has been hacked on day 1, i assume that will not be fixed for the duration.
1 build, race, is already pretty much unbeatable, so its a endless stream of mirror matches or lose.
2 factions are pretty much obsolete already.
I can only assume you have forsaken you loyal 5% MP players.
For some noob friendly, tactically inconsequential, i got some points i did good, never ending middle slog fest.
Bring back the days when a man can bring foot repanse, 10 trebs , no mage and still winhttps://ibb.co/FVJWLrg
5 years you had to do anything with it, with tons of complaints on the forums to assist you.
I can't stand playing for more than a few weeks at a time. Every game is just skirmish cav shooting you and single entities cycle charging you.
Day 2,000 and still land battles never caught on. Stale competition, builds, and "design." BORING.
Infantry are pointless, just there to soak missiles and die.
1 build, any race, no one could find a better build than skirmish cav and SEM's for 5 years. Just an endless stream of WE/DE ranged kite, or OP summons being spammed at you every game (to protect their ranged units).
I can only assume that you saw this and rightfully changed this garbage game mode. (What kind of competitive "esports" scene needs to police themselves with their own rules to fight abuse? LOL.)
Never bring back the days where I am forced to run at the enemy missiles just because I have less of them.
9 · 22Disagree 9Agree
I find them boring to watch and don't appeal tactically at all, there is no depth. The endless reinforcements make unit destruction inconsequential, you can't win by destroying the enemy army, it has little effect. The action turns into a brawl in the middle and lacks engagement in the watching let alone playing.
The resources spent on domination if directed at the hugely passionate land battle community would have been so perfect.
I'm hoping CA plan to breathe some QOL improvements into land battles aka Deathmatch.
This is such a missed opportunity so far I'm very disappointed
13 · 5Disagree 13Agree
I do think it has a place in the game but as a fun side mode not main focus, in that aspects its garbage.
Plz give two ranked modes, land and this so we can have different types of people enjoy the ranked aspect.
7 · 7Disagree 7Agree
4 · Disagree 4Agree
1) Maps are total crap, and there's just 7 of them. Really?
2) The ratio of initial army/reinforcements is completely wrong. Reinforcements should be there to give you some flexibility, not provide a long stream of new units entering the battlefield constantly. It ruins tactical aspect. If there's a problematic unit and you manage to create a tactical advantage and get rid of it, well.... opponent will just summon it again.
It reminds me of the great battle of Pharsalus, where Caesar lost to Pompey. Caesar feigned a weak flank and when Pompey cavalry took the bait, Caesar's hidden infantry routed Pompey's cavalry. Unfortunately for Caesar, Pompey just re-summoned his cavalry and won the battle. Caesar was executed, and Pompey returned to Rome victorious.
History lesson aside, something like 75/25 or 80/20 ratio of initial troops/reinforcements would be better. And if a unit is dead, it's dead. Bye, bye. The end.
3) No comeback mechanics, or bonuses based on damage dealt.
15 · 3Disagree 15Agree
12 · 1Disagree 12Agree
UI is so bad in army select (cannot even compare steed stats...)
Ranged not responsive even on auto fire
...OK do lords in melee have a ward save? feels way way harder to dmg **** in melee actually in general melee fights seem to last way longer and not just accounting for HP change to ultra which was bad also, units just live way longer than before in bad trades....maybe PC mechanic to make the game "Inclusive".
Positives are that spell effects are good and maps look nice though UI again garbage.
Ohh and sooooo much freaking red..... why add so much red everywhere even though you dont add blood...
3 · 1Disagree 3Agree
You're preference for land battles is almost entirely subjective, but if other people don't enjoy you simply call them dumb noobs.
If other people enjoy domination, they are wrong and have completely ruined total war.
I could say that people that enjoy land battles can't win a game without spamming skirmish cav and other OP mechanics.
See how easy this is?
3 · 12Disagree 3Agree
Just because some people don't think this is fun at the moment, it certainly doesn't stop you from enjoying it. I still hope I will end up liking domination, I'm just not very confident right now.
With certain changes, I can see it being decent.
There are a lot objective positives in domination. It might end up being more popular, first and foremost because there's no need for separate rules, which makes the job of event organizers and tubers much easier.
But, I do find it worrying that even people who were quite keen on domination mode before the launch are having mixed feelings at best.
6 · 1Disagree 6Agree
I'd disagree and argue against your "points" in the OP, but I'd just be talking to a brick wall - you already made up your mind. Nothing wrong with liking archaic game modes but that doesn't mean domination mode is bad.
2 · 5Disagree 2Agree
1. Switch the funds for starting armies and reinforcements.
2. Don’t allow bringing back of dead units. (Not sure how much this really matters, it still costs points to bring these units back. Bringing back a dead lord is going to cost a premium.
3. Add some maps from the land battle pool. Put capture points on them. Not every map has to have 3 terrain pieces with narrow roads going to the objective points. Bring back conventional maps, this would open up new play styles, and would help Cathay in particular.
3 · 2Disagree 3Agree
BUT looking at the photo (10 trebs or whatever silly army and won) I have never felt so confident that domination is a good change after all. I know that many of you are not very competitive players so you may be impressed by this kind of "diversity" the game offers. This is a perfect example of build roulette that can only be solved by reinforcement. May I remind you that the pro-land battle camp had been holding tournaments themselves using ADDITIONAL rules, and in particular additional unit caps so that your army is actually considered a rule break under BANNER RULES (which is the standard of tournament in case you have no idea).
Talking about rules, there are actually way more in the previous tournament setting, the attacking rule, the no-forest camping rule, etc. And despite all these MANY and ANNOYING rules, disputes still exist and they actually need to have a referee to make a judgment call as to whether that is considered a rule break constantly LOL That is the reality of how complicated things are in land battle. If domination does not exist the next thing they are gonna do is probably giving out yellow and red cards to players it's ridiculous.
And before you say it, NO, adding a capture point in the middle does not solve all these issues. Looking back at the tournament scene we see most people are DELAYING attacks and this is the no.1 dispute in tournament - people are arguing whether simply walking one unit is considered rule break. Why? I can tell you now - IT's BECOZ LAND BATTLE IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. There is no reward for engaging in melee for one of the players, ALWAYS. Because one side will always have the ammo advantage and it is of his (or maybe her in your case) best interest to retreat the entire army back until he has effectively used up all the ammo (aka kiting).
MOST IMPORTANTLY, what you actually like is not land battle, you just like the feeling of winning against new players who hasn't prepared for your extreme army and you are assuming the rest of us must feel the same. What do you guys got to lose so far? Tournaments are not held on ladder anyway, its always been held privately so I don't know why you guys are complaining at all?
0 · 11Disagree Agree
Yeah sure great win against a dwarf player with no mage and 10 trebs, which you know doesn't have any fast unit to catch your trebs. Genius play! Now try joining some clans and maybe take that army to Felkon or even Lotus Moon (which I have come to realize is also a not-bad player) and see how fast you lose. Players like you going into extreme builds have been slowly destroying this game, driving away new players, and now look at what have you accomplished? A new mode is established and you can no longer cheese LMAO.
I am done with this conversation. PERIOD.
0 · 5Disagree Agree
He's not doing that to give himself advantage, it is the opposite - he's doing that to give himself a challenge. The result is that he loses much more often than he should, considering his skill.
Slade is one of the nicest people in the community and is universally liked. So when he complains about such things, it is most certainly NOT because he wants to "cheese", it's because of lack of variety in current domination battles.
12 · 2Disagree 12Agree
You're post shows a clear lack of understanding of the issue raised by OP and is full of WRONG assumptions
0 · 7Disagree Agree
and thinking land battles was the same armies again and again...did you even play?
kiting was never very strong - if you prepared for it. mainly the strength of kiting factions is forcing opponent to invest in antikite and then either have a micro match off antikite vs kite or rope-a-dope and bring some sort of stand and fight army that had an advantage unless opponent managed to use his mobility really well.
land battlers isnt very noob friendly, you need to know every matchup you play so noobs either have to focus on just learning 15 (soon 23) matchups really well and be annoyed at how little variety they encounter or they need hundreds if not thousands of games to be prepared for what opponent might bring.
I like land battles because its a lot like deckbuilding in magic, unlike magic however there are no online resources to help noobs and ppl who arent interested in building, just random builds in vids that may depend on skill or just have sort of worked vs whatéver opponent randomly brought. and most players are kinda secretive about their techs...
domination feels a lot like omniscience, just random **** being mashed together, no overall gameplan you adjust as you go...im fine with it being an option i do NOT understand why they had to remove landbattles from competitive
3 · Disagree 3Agree
Tzeentch and Ogres would still be the top factions. Tzeentch off the back of micro and air dominance, and Ogres off the back of Gorgers and Ironblasters being OP right now... which would be even more relevant in quick battles, where they can micro and abuse the Skragg regen more, and the ironblasters can skirmish for longer without any pressure to fight with the rest of your army. If your artillery used all of its ammo, and didn't get value at least 50% more than the cost to bring it in damage value, then you were shooting it at bad targets, or the artillery just isn't very good and needs buffs.
The purpose of artillery in domination is pretty simple - generate value. If a unit kills more than it cost, it's still increasing your odds of winning to some degree, and with Cathay in particular, that crew with no ammunition has value running into the front lines to provide harmony.
Bear in mind that 4/7 factions right now have probably the best flying unit in all 3 games for diving artillery. Artillery is quite good vs Cathay and Kislev and is decent vs Ogres. Vs the Daemon factions, it's at its worst vs Slaanesh/Tzeentch, and its best vs Nurgle, but even Nurgle has a good option for shutting it down with furies.
Artillery wouldn't be particularly useful vs the Daemon factions in land battles either.
When the WH1/2 factions become available in MP, artillery will have a less niche place in the meta, because there are a lot less game 1/2 factions that can reliably deal with it.
2 · 4Disagree 2Agree
Land battles with point capture and NO funds should have been the way.
CA rly **** the bed CA on this one.
Thats what you get when you dont consult people who actually play the game but corporate shills.
5 · 4Disagree 5Agree
Only reason why kitting is not even stronger is limit of 360 units. You cannot spam 12 cham skinks due to this limit.
1 · 1Disagree 1Agree
0 · Disagree Agree
GS were too cheap for what they did. Chams were just good value too. There were strong and weak skirmish units, but over all I'd say the full kite/cav play style was very rare compared to the wide infantry spam meta the final year, with varying degrees of sem/low entity blob.
The last few months of wh2 it was getting more balanced again with the exception of BM and oxy, so over all we had such an excellent starting point for faction balance going into game three.
Unfortunately, then game 3 happened instead and years of iterative balance was thrown out the window.
9 · 1Disagree 9Agree
skirmishers are brought by armies that dont have good ranged options or by ranged factions that lack the tools to keep their ranged safe from the most aggressive factions, when neither of those is the case they arent used which tells you they are balanced. they close gaps in rosters, the game would be far worse without them and for most factions they are far from autopick
2 · Disagree 2Agree
5 · Disagree 5Agree
0 · 3Disagree Agree
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
0 · 5Disagree Agree
4 · Disagree 4Agree
2 · Disagree 2Agree
With limits in place, there was much less build roulette than people think. In tournaments, you'd see same group of people reach final stages vast majority of times, clearly showing that army building is also part of skill. Build "roulette" would imply that it was luck, and if that was the case, there would be much more variety.
If you're talking specifically about pure artillery build example in the OP, then yes, it would be illegal under most tournament rules, but would be easy to make it legal without changing the general nature of it. You'd just need to drop a single arty piece and add a few cheapest infantry units.
Why you wouldn't see it in tournaments, is because that build is total crap. Again, Slade is actually hurting his chances to win by using such a build compared to a more competitive one. He's using it because he'd have like 90-95% win rate vs casual opponents on QB if he played a serious build. He's just giving himself more of a challenge. When one loses to such an army, it is most definitely not because of "build roulette". It's because they were outplayed.
2 · Disagree 2Agree
0 · Disagree Agree
Lack of variety in current domination battles is what you are talking about, and it's true because in domination you can only bring a handful units in the beginning. Of coz you cannot replicate the 10 trebs army when you only got 5 units to start with. This is a fact and is related to the fundamentals of the new reinforcement mode. OP can't just bring in all trebs in reinforcement because he can no longer win that way, which I think everyone can agree. So yes no more 10 trebs army which in turns lead to lack of army variety.
WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, is basically the OP's topic sentence and conclusion -
1. It's boring
2. Bring back the days when a man can bring foot repanse, 10 trebs , no mage and still win
The OP is saying that his subjective feeling is that he feels boring because he can no longer bring silly army and still win, which somehow you guys interpret as:
Lack of army variety = Boring, which is only true for the OP. Me for example, doesn't find that true at all!
You can still bring 10 trebs army in domination. It's just that you can't win anymore, even against noobs. And that's why you find it boring.
This imho is not about challenging yourself at all which you have mentioned a couple of times, 'coz tbh if you reli want the game to be challenging yea go ahead bring 10 trebs in land battle in a tournament and see if you win against a competitive player that would be a real challenge. Instead, the OP can only find his victims on ladder, i.e. noobs and win with those kinds of armies. WTH is that kind of a challenge and what kind of people find it interesting in doing that? It's like going back to kindergarten and play basketball with kids much younger and shorter than you. And then you "challenged" yourself by using one arm only. And when you win you talked to your college friends like "hey you know the other day slam dunk 10 times all the way playing with one hand only...pretty cool right" .... Like really? That's interesting and is considered a challenge to yourself?!
2 · 7Disagree 2Agree