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

Please don't nerf units based on multiplayer, adjust costs instead!

steam_164508117833cGm95S8steam_164508117833cGm95S8 Registered Users Posts: 18
edited August 12 in Warhammer Battle Feedback
TL;DR increase recruitment costs, don't lower units' stats based on multiplayer results!

This is mainly a plea for Ogre kingdoms but definitely applicable to all factions.

The first and most important point is that Total war games are by far mostly campaign games, not multiplayer battles. Most of the mechanics and features of the game are seen on campaign, not in multiplayer battles.

The second very important point is: it doesn't matter how much damage and how many units you lose in multiplayer battles as long as you win the battle. That is absolutely not the case in campaign. If your army wins a phyrric victory in campaign, you can't win another battle that turn, and probably for multiple turns while you replenish while paying their upkeep. Unless it's the most important and campaign-defining battle of the next 10 turns, that's a defeat for your campaign. That's why units like furies, warhounds (not flesh hounds of Khorne but all the others), and bats are useful in multiplayer but totally useless in campaign (unless you use exploits with them...). Most horse cavalry are in this category too. They get wrecked too quickly and if the unit survives the battle it's useless for the next one while using one of your limited spots in your armies and costing you upkeep.

Third point: if you nerf units, you can adjust your multiplayer battle playstyle instantly. Just use less of those units or don't focus your build around them anymore. But already ongoing campaigns that you have invested a lot of time in can get absolutely wrecked.

Fourth point: You have the perfect way of balancing units for multiplayer without destroying campaigns - recruitment cost. Basically, you could increase recruitment cost just for multiplayer but even if it's also for campaign, that is not all that impactful in campaign if the unit is very useful but it is essential for multiplayer battles. In contrast, upkeep cost is campaign-exclusive and that is very impactful, so maybe don't touch that.

As an illustrative example of all these points, let us consider the Gorgers. An excellent unit by all metrics, no doubt about it. Very useful, and quite cheap for what it can deliver. But it is a low-armor, low-entity number, melee-only unit. Kill one entity, and you have severely reduced their capabilities. In multiplayer, they are incredibly oppressive, but in campaign they really aren't. Don't get me wrong, they are strong but that is good. Skrag can make them substantially better under the right circumstances (against armies with lots of low-tier high-entity number infantry that you can kill easily with magic and you have enough winds of magic for it). But that is only one army of your empire! And not applicable in every battle anyway.

Because they are melee only, Gorgers will take damage and probably lose units every single battle. If you nerf their stats, they will just become useless in campaign. In comparison, missile units replenish all ammo after every battle so they are actually more effective in general if you manage to protect them.

Gorgers can win against elite halberd units. In multiplayer that can be a massive win. In campaign that is a loss, you cannot afford to use them that way unless your whole campaign depends on it. So you won't use them that way. The AI doesn't play by the same rules, so their more expensive elite halberds are actually worth less. That trade is cost-effective for the AI, not the player!

So increase their recruitment cost to balance for multiplayer but don't nerf their stats otherwise one of the most unique and interesting units in the game will become useless like so many other units (furies, bats and warhounds again...).

In multiplayer, Ogres have been definitely overperforming but in campaign they really aren't overpowered. In comparison, Khorne is much much stronger in campaign. Honestly, Cathay is probably stronger in campaign with their very powerfult garrisons, caravans (Ogre contracts are abysmal in comparison) and excellent missile units (which will always be more cost-effective), even if they underperform in multiplayer. Ogres only have tier 3 buildings (other than camps but you can only get 8 of those by the end of the campaign, maybe 9 with Greasus IIRC). They feel quite balanced in campaign with a mostly viable roster (except melee gnoblars, which again are useful in multiplayer, useless in campaign other than as garrisons).

In conclusions, no nerfs based on multiplayer! Only cost adjustments. By contrast, strengthening units is actually fine for campaign (looking at you Celestial Dragon Guard and Elemental Bear...). Your ongoing campaign doesn't get wrecked, you can keep playing as you were but if you want to adjust for the newly useful unit you can start doing that.
Post edited by CA_Will on
«1

Comments

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    more precisely; some units require separate balancing because they function differently.
    I agree w your points on gorgers, but a unit like light war sleds are overly strong and not less effective in campaign and should be nerfed in both SP and MP - and it would be best nerfed by removing AP (to make it different from heavy war sled) rather than adjusting cost.

    Id say the reverse of gorgers is actually true of a unit like SOA that is very strong in campaign but needs a buff in MP, and agreed in those cases the separate cost is a great tool to keep both gamemodes balanced
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 2,050

    Because they are melee only, Gorgers will take damage and probably lose units every single battle. If you nerf their stats, they will just become useless in campaign. In comparison, missile units replenish all ammo after every battle so they are actually more effective in general if you manage to protect them.

    That is true for all melee units that compete with ranged units in their roster. And it doesn't matter if you leave gorgers in their buffed state Leadbelchers are still a thing and so are SEM. A certain group of campaign players will always run max optimization and that means discarding melee all together. And nerfing gorgers does not impact that.

    And campaign needs balance changes as well. How can I expect to use a unit like khorne chaos spawn when they can not trade effectively into units like gorgers which you'd expect them to beat cost for cost. Buffing chaos spawns just propagates the problem onto them and you end up with more power creep.

  • NightOfTheDeadNightOfTheDead Member Registered Users Posts: 814
    This logic is most often incorrect. If you made peasant archers like waywatchers, and increased their cost, would this be ok?

    Units have hierarchical resemblance to that of their stats from TT. However, transforming it into real time, some adaptation has to be made, but most of the time cost cannot solve things. Sometimes it is just cost thing, but during early stages of releases, there has to be a lot of internal balance done.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    it takes 10 seconds to realize gorgers are a much better deal than maneaters. in campaign and vs some factions i'd say ironguts are at least as good thanks to armor but nonpistol/GW maneaters have nothing going for them in the comparison, especially once you realize that gorger attack interval of 3.2 doesnt seem to be hampered by attack animation.

    Gorgers arent super OP, they often dont do too well in MP if they get tied up against chaff, but they certainly are a good 10% undercosted while maneaters a few % at best.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 18,905
    Well pretty sure gorgers are gonna get nerfed and it will not be price i reckon .

    Just a hunch they will bece more non ap than ap after the patch.



    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited March 29
    saweendra said:

    Well pretty sure gorgers are gonna get nerfed and it will not be price i reckon .

    Just a hunch they will bece more non ap than ap after the patch.


    hmm ot sure how i feel about that, it leaves ogres w no good melee answers to elite polearms unless they give maneaters AI - I'd like the change then i suppose...but for gorgers it would balance them costwise, just as well as a 150 pricenerf...less niche and i cant decide if thats a good thing.
  • Totentanz777#2915Totentanz777#2915 Registered Users Posts: 805
    RawSugar said:

    saweendra said:

    Well pretty sure gorgers are gonna get nerfed and it will not be price i reckon .

    Just a hunch they will bece more non ap than ap after the patch.


    hmm ot sure how i feel about that, it leaves ogres w no good melee answers to elite polearms unless they give maneaters AI - I'd like the change then i suppose...but for gorgers it would balance them costwise, just as well as a 150 pricenerf...less niche and i cant decide if thats a good thing.
    Ogres have plenty of good range, all of which will do good damage to halberds
  • Pippington#5795Pippington#5795 Registered Users Posts: 2,377
    RawSugar said:

    hmm ot sure how i feel about that, it leaves ogres w no good melee answers to elite polearms unless they give maneaters AI

    No faction should have monstrous infantry that trades efficiently into elite polearm infantry 1v1. This isn't a slot that needs filling, any more than dwarfs need a melee unit that trades efficiently into Swordmasters.



    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 18,905
    RawSugar said:

    saweendra said:

    Well pretty sure gorgers are gonna get nerfed and it will not be price i reckon .

    Just a hunch they will bece more non ap than ap after the patch.


    hmm ot sure how i feel about that, it leaves ogres w no good melee answers to elite polearms unless they give maneaters AI - I'd like the change then i suppose...but for gorgers it would balance them costwise, just as well as a 150 pricenerf...less niche and i cant decide if thats a good thing.
    Eh what ? Orgers have no answers out side of gorgers on elite pole arm? Thats honestly ridiculous

    They have following ways to deal with them.

    A. Maneater pistols
    B. Lead belchers
    C. Scrap launchers
    As misslie ways to handle them

    And also cycle chrging
    Basic maneaters
    Mornfang cav
    Crushers cav
    And stone horn cycle charging


    And the two cav actually have enogugh mass to pull through most units.

    They can deal with these units. Pretty easily infact


    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,678
    campaign has the perfect way to make units OP without breaking multiplayer, its called tech and skill trees. Please dont ruin multiplayer for the sake of campaign.


  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 18,905
    Loupi_ said:

    campaign has the perfect way to make units OP without breaking multiplayer, its called tech and skill trees. Please dont ruin multiplayer for the sake of campaign.

    Nah you don't need op in both sp and mp. Thats just stare case of retardedness for so as well.

    Orgers only real sp issue is how camps are so immobilr and they need that for meat.

    There us no balance to meat. Gnoblars also use meat

    The best way to adjust would be to increase meat production.
    Remove gnoblar units from meat usage.
    Adjust meat consumption by unit like man eater use more meat than regular orger bull but less meat than orger iron gut...etc.

    And double the number of camps they can have..

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,440
    I have no problem with the headline request in cases where units are functioning well in campaign, but I don't see how gorgers being priced and statted in a horribly unbalanced way is good for campaign.

    Obviously the author of this discussion does. But you do not speak for all campaign players. Some campaign players enjoy a more balanced unit.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited March 29
    I think ogres vs elite halberd is at least potentially more akin to dwarves vs chariots than dwarves vs swordmasters.
    swordmasters are manageable (albeit still a real issue) because dwarves are a ranged faction whereas ogres are more of a semiranged faction, they wont be able to simply destroy them at distance, its more of an even fight, likely somewhat disadvantaged if you throw in some disruption. gorgers being strong AI, AP and low armor gave ogres another counter that they really needed....
    On the other hand brettonia seems to manage and leadbelchers is probably a stronger counter than peasant bowmen...

    on the meat issue; obviously the fix is that gnoblars should be meat when needed
  • Pippington#5795Pippington#5795 Registered Users Posts: 2,377
    edited March 29
    You seem to already be halfway to the same realisation with your comment about leadbelchers, but I don't think the statement that ogres can't destroy elite polearms at a distance has even a passing relationship to reality.

    Certainly in land battles I'd also think that comparing polearm infantry to chariots in terms of their impact on matchups was another kind of bonkers - you have one unit type that is highly able to choose its engagements and doesn't shed models vs. another that is minimally able to choose its engagements and sheds models pretty prolifically, even in good trades. In Domination, though, maybe that argument holds more water - I don't know. But I don't think with ogres' ranged units and magic lores that they will have any problems clearing off elite infantry blobbed on a point.


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    looking at it again ogre gun units have a significant speed advantage. they should actually be able to kite making a polearm heavy army quite a bother, needing to be combined with either something fast or a ranged advantage...i guess the potential issue isnt too bad
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,986
    Every few weeks this comes up, I wish people would use the search function.


    MP operates in a vacuum with no modifiers /mutators. Campaign does. MP as a result is the way to test units in a 'pure' setting to allow them to be appropriately balanced and framed to work in their faction and support its strengths or weaknesses. Campaign allows you to go mad with mutators/modifiers, which is fine, in campaign, and only works well, when units start in balance.


    Tldr:
    Campaign allows crazy modifiers. MP is the pure way to balance and use units in coherence with and against each other for a fun experience.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,440

    Every few weeks this comes up, I wish people would use the search function.


    MP operates in a vacuum with no modifiers /mutators. Campaign does. MP as a result is the way to test units in a 'pure' setting to allow them to be appropriately balanced and framed to work in their faction and support its strengths or weaknesses. Campaign allows you to go mad with mutators/modifiers, which is fine, in campaign, and only works well, when units start in balance.


    Tldr:
    Campaign allows crazy modifiers. MP is the pure way to balance and use units in coherence with and against each other for a fun experience.

    i also think there's a misunderstanding because CA does hamfisted balance adjustments, so due to that people are scared to let anyone touch their units. Which is a legitimate fear. But the issue is not calling for balanced units, it's CA's need to get better at balancing.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited March 30


    Tldr:
    Campaign allows crazy modifiers. MP is the pure way to balance and use units in coherence with and against each other for a fun experience.

    what sets MP and SP apart isnt bonuses, but

    1) AI builds and tactics
    2) siege
    3) campaign being a series of battles, which means casualties matter as much as winning in the first place

    Its a very different game mode, and where ranged heavy armies are rare in MP they have huge advantages in all 3 of the above points. they ought to be nerfed in campaign, both to make campaign less dumb (it doesnt even need to be more challenging, you could buff melee, especially CB dependent melee and nerf ranged at the same time) and to make complaints such as these less valid
    guy is completely correct; gorgers arent OP in campaign, they take big casualties even in favored fights and they arent that strong, especially at higher levels of difficulties where they fight enemy units of high rank and with bonuses. compared to a OK gunpowder army they arent very efficient, and nerfing them seems nonsensical if thats your mode of reference
  • y4g3ry4g3r Registered Users Posts: 665
    Sounds like the OP's issue is that he isn't spec-ing in the replenishment stat and needs to learn to. A single +3% tech doesn't sound like much, but it really adds up fast.

    One-two heroes, a couple ancillaries and a lord with replenishment can have you recoup ~75-80% of a unit's health in one turn.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,572
    y4g3r said:

    Sounds like the OP's issue is that he isn't spec-ing in the replenishment stat and needs to learn to. A single +3% tech doesn't sound like much, but it really adds up fast.

    One-two heroes, a couple ancillaries and a lord with replenishment can have you recoup ~75-80% of a unit's health in one turn.

    You can only replenish 50% per turn unless they removed the cap.

    The OP isn't really describing an issue with balancing units for campaign vs multiplayer. As far as I can tell, most of the Stat changes people suggest are actually buffs. Usually if someone is recommending stats nerfs it's because the unit is performing ridiculously well and counterintuitively with the game's design, or is performing anachronistically with the source material. If state troops could beat chaos warriors then they need to be nerfed because that shouldn't happed. If Minotaurs w/GW work perfectly well and Minotaurs w/ dual weapons can beat them, then they need to be nerfed because they're acting counterintuitively to the game's design. Units like Light War sleds need to be nerfed not just because they're too strong, but because they're so strong that they make heavy war sleds completely irrelevant.

    A lot of what the OP brought up has nothing to do with how units are inherently designed/balanced. Most of it is issues with the way the campaign is designed. Units should not be balanced around the campaign's flawed design and mechanics. The campaign is what needs a new approach to balancing, not multiplayer. You shouldn't need a unit to be "OP" just for it to viable in campaign.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that Her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 6,810
    eumaies said:

    Every few weeks this comes up, I wish people would use the search function.


    MP operates in a vacuum with no modifiers /mutators. Campaign does. MP as a result is the way to test units in a 'pure' setting to allow them to be appropriately balanced and framed to work in their faction and support its strengths or weaknesses. Campaign allows you to go mad with mutators/modifiers, which is fine, in campaign, and only works well, when units start in balance.


    Tldr:
    Campaign allows crazy modifiers. MP is the pure way to balance and use units in coherence with and against each other for a fun experience.

    i also think there's a misunderstanding because CA does hamfisted balance adjustments, so due to that people are scared to let anyone touch their units. Which is a legitimate fear. But the issue is not calling for balanced units, it's CA's need to get better at balancing.
    Those hamfisted cases are WAAY in the minority. 99% they're in the right direction. Sometimes they slightly under or overshoot, but all game devs are guilty of that, hell even ID with Doom Eternal


    As for CA, one very few time they nerfed a unit a little much is Crypt Horrors. People **** over Ancient Salamander, but every single complaint always revealed a clear lack of understanding over how to use the unit.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,908
    If anyone wants to play single player a certain way, it's one mod away.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 960
    As some one pointed out CA can just improve units through tech tree performance this keeps both SP & MP happy.
  • y4g3ry4g3r Registered Users Posts: 665

    As some one pointed out CA can just improve units through tech tree performance this keeps both SP & MP happy.

    This is what I don't get from single player advocates. The single best campaign CA released for Wh2 was Grom, because he drastically changed the playstyle of the underlying faction he came out for. He didn't change goblins in any way for their multiplayer/base game performance, just through abilities and special skills.

    I play singleplayer a lot, and the letdown of wh3's tech trees is that the don't really do all that much. All the tech adds up, but there isn't a single Kislev tech that I want to beeline for, for a specific playstyle or boost. It's just... Okay.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    i dont know that i agree that the techs dont matter - they really do add up, for some more than others.
    but defo agree that they should be playing around with it more, changing units in optional ways rather than just improving performance. Its a singleplayer feature, balance doesnt really matter so just go wild with the ideas and balance as best you can
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 5,672
    RawSugar said:


    Tldr:
    Campaign allows crazy modifiers. MP is the pure way to balance and use units in coherence with and against each other for a fun experience.

    what sets MP and SP apart isnt bonuses, but

    1) AI builds and tactics
    2) siege
    3) campaign being a series of battles, which means casualties matter as much as winning in the first place

    Its a very different game mode, and where ranged heavy armies are rare in MP they have huge advantages in all 3 of the above points. they ought to be nerfed in campaign, both to make campaign less dumb (it doesnt even need to be more challenging, you could buff melee, especially CB dependent melee and nerf ranged at the same time) and to make complaints such as these less valid
    guy is completely correct; gorgers arent OP in campaign, they take big casualties even in favored fights and they arent that strong, especially at higher levels of difficulties where they fight enemy units of high rank and with bonuses. compared to a OK gunpowder army they arent very efficient, and nerfing them seems nonsensical if thats your mode of reference
    Lol, he isn't right. Gorgers are OP in campaign too, specially taking into account the level at which you can get them (tier 3)
  • Hanzo11Hanzo11 Registered Users Posts: 164
    RawSugar said:

    i dont know that i agree that the techs dont matter - they really do add up, for some more than others.
    but defo agree that they should be playing around with it more, changing units in optional ways rather than just improving performance. Its a singleplayer feature, balance doesnt really matter so just go wild with the ideas and balance as best you can


    I think tech definitely makes a difference, but from my time with TWW3 the tech seems to be largely less impactful and strong when compared to game 2. That factors into the tools available in single player to offset balance changes that may be too heavy handed.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 18,905
    Hanzo11 said:

    RawSugar said:

    i dont know that i agree that the techs dont matter - they really do add up, for some more than others.
    but defo agree that they should be playing around with it more, changing units in optional ways rather than just improving performance. Its a singleplayer feature, balance doesnt really matter so just go wild with the ideas and balance as best you can


    I think tech definitely makes a difference, but from my time with TWW3 the tech seems to be largely less impactful and strong when compared to game 2. That factors into the tools available in single player to offset balance changes that may be too heavy handed.
    this was a good change add pop mechanics to all the races than it will come to down to player skill .

    use of tactics , terrain, camapgin action proper planning ..etc for the win

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • yst#1879yst#1879 Registered Users Posts: 9,900
    edited April 2
    I really dont understand how people play orge kingdoms. None of my orge builds ever includes gorgers or ironblasters. The later i can understand as u may want a 380m art, but gorgers is just pointless lol like helooooo orges r $500

    A $1100 unit with less survival than a $500 lol
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
Sign In or Register to comment.