Chaos Debate what the community wants in the future

TheTrue_LordAndy#1434

Reviewing the article today there was a lot of good news.

Personally I was not surprised. As I have said before, CA was in a position where there are alot of desired LL to be added to mono gods but they also had to re-work WOC. By adding Azazel, Valkia, Festus and Vilitch to the DLC they where attempting to hit two birds with one stone. And yes choosing LL's that will SELL is a big criteria I would imagine. So big hitters like Valkia and Azazel make sense in that context.

Anyways on to what I would like to see in the future:

1. WOC Confederations

I know CA said they are working on this. Good. Main thing for me is that undivided WOC i.e. Archeon, Kholek and Be'lakore should be able to confederate all the WOC factions.

Azazel and Sigval should be able to confederate eachother

God Aligned WOC should not be able to confederate other chaos god aligned factions.


2. MonoGods should have access to their champions from this DLC (and Sigvald for slanesh)

This an be done in either of two way and I am fine with either as long as the option is there because ultimately when playing Skarbrand i want to be able to get Valkia, when playing N'kari i want to be able to get sigvald and Azazel.

2a. If their faction on the campaign map is defeated they will appear as a recruitable Lord
2b. A mechanic similar to the beastmen where you can gather other legendary lords

I realize 2b may be harder implementation wise since that may involve cross faction confederation if the target LL is on the map, so I am fine with option 2a as well.


3. If #1 and #2 are resolved I am fine with the direction of this DLC, however PLEASE PLEASE lets not use this strategy with the eventual Norscare-work.

i.e. I do not want to see Tamurkhan, Egrimm Van Hortsman or even Arbaal in Norsca.


4. Arbaal, Karanak, Scyla Anfingrim & Skultaker should be in Khorne mono god factions
Epidemius, Glotkin, Gutrot Spume, Tamurkhan should be in Nurgle monogod factions
Changeling, Aekold Helbrass, the Blue skribes and Egrimm Van Hortsman should be in Tzeench mono god factions
Dechala and Masque of Slaanesh sould be in Slaanesh monogod factions


These four are what I want please share if you agree / disagree or would like to add to the above

Nyxilis#3646

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

mecanojavi99#6562

Nyxilis said:

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

Regardless of your opinion on confederations, CA is working on them for WoC, so they will eventually get it.

mecanojavi99#6562

I'm a simple man, I just want as much content as possible.

WhySoSalty#3990

Soo tl;dr you just want to give ALL the remaining characters to the monogods going by your last point + the 4 LL from the upcoming LP aswell

Beargod#2952

No they actually pulled me off from the idea of buying this. With their 'big hitters'. Just make a good lord pack and flesh out the characters with unique mechanics. Never kept us from buying it in the past now did it? Are you goint to tell met that Taurox (who didnt even have an official model from gw) and Oxyotl are 'big hitters' ?? ofcourse not! but it was a great Lord pack because the mechanics where great and fun to play.

TheTrue_LordAndy#1434

WhySoSalty said:

Soo tl;dr you just want to give ALL the remaining characters to the monogods going by your last point + the 4 LL from the upcoming LP aswell

I want to have access to all of them when I play mono gods. What can I say, I got to catch them all...

WhySoSalty#3990

TheTrue_LordAndy said:

WhySoSalty said:

Soo tl;dr you just want to give ALL the remaining characters to the monogods going by your last point + the 4 LL from the upcoming LP aswell

I want to have access to all of them when I play mono gods. What can I say, I got to catch them all...

yeah thats what i thought. you can sum up your wall of text into "i want to play pokemon". well in that case im not the part of your "community" i want to see most of the established chaos characters too but i dont want mindless bloating just for the sake of "catch them all"

Valkaar#2507

Nyxilis said:

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

Confederations offer WAY more benefits to a Campaign, for both the player directly, and the player fighting the AI, than just collecting LL's. They offer increased incentive and depth to interacting with Diplomacy. They help make sure you're not eternally Strength Rank 1 once you own 3 provinces, they contribute to late game threats, they offer options for more immersive gameplay, uniting regions that your culture should own but shouldn't have to war with your allies to actually possess, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, when they're too easy or happen too frequently, they have drawbacks.

But that's an issue of balancing them. Not removing them for the Campaign. Overall, Confederations are good. They just aren't good in excess or too much ease.

Nyxilis#3646

mecanojavi99 said:

Nyxilis said:

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

Regardless of your opinion on confederations, CA is working on them for WoC, so they will eventually get it.

Also mentioned recruitment of lords from defeated factions.

Also, doesn't mean the policy isn't bad. Regardless of your opinion, it sucks. It's bad. It's a bad mechanic spun by people who want to play pokelords and can't just admit that's their purpose so they continue to support a cancerous bad gameplay inducing easy mode mechanic that has wasted countless hours of development time.

You beat on a target that you'd probably wail on anyways, you drop a ton of gold. Bam you get their armies, heros, lords, territory, and all the stuff and resources the ai spent on it. Lackluster gameplay of easy street for the player and the AI and has done nothing but introduce a vast series of tides.

So I don't care if CA is wasting time on it. If you didn't catch their tone on it they clearly don't view it in high regards because they know exactly what it's for. Pokelords, while realizing the problems it makes for the game. But those players don't care, gotta catch em all. Damn the consequences for the game.

Beast_of_Guanyin#8747

Valkaar said:

Nyxilis said:

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

Confederations offer WAY more benefits to a Campaign, for both the player directly, and the player fighting the AI, than just collecting LL's. They offer increased incentive and depth to interacting with Diplomacy. They help make sure you're not eternally Strength Rank 1 once you own 3 provinces, they contribute to late game threats, they offer options for more immersive gameplay, uniting regions that your culture should own but shouldn't have to war with your allies to actually possess, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, when they're too easy or happen too frequently, they have drawbacks.

But that's an issue of balancing them. Not removing them for the Campaign. Overall, Confederations are good. They just aren't good in excess or too much ease.

I think Confederations are coool.

1v0#3562

I don't think there will be anymore LLs for WoC - damn they have 8 LLs - its the first DLC race to have 8 LLs.
As for norsca They might get more with the rework - maybe 1 FLC + 1 from a LP ? or just 1 FLC lord.

Now the confederation - I'm happy that WoC confederation is coming.
But I want Monogods confederation too - it pains me to have to chose between Skarbrand and Valkia only to end up playing with almost the same units (because I will use the same units with both...) with some extra features on WoC side...

So yeaaa I'm all for letting the Monogods confederate the God special champions ,but not the other way around - Because it makes sense for Valkia to want to join Khorne race/faction, but not for Skarbrand to want to join WoC...

Xihu#1413

As long as the confederation is lore-friendly, I’m ok with it. Seems like that’s the intent behind CA’s vision for Chaos, so I’m optimistic.

I like that they’re building rosters/mechanics with the LL’s lore in mind.

#239632

Tomb kings and vamp pirates cant confed and they work fine. Confed works for some races like Norsca.

Trog#5845

The thing I want is to be able to confederate ku'gath whit festus , azael, sigval and N'Kari , etc...(in a nutshell to be able to confederate among the lords under the same god ) , and archeon almost all chaos warriors, it must be the first priority for me , I don't think it's that complicated all the structures become of the playing faction after the confederation Units that the player faction cannot use are destroye

TheTrue_LordAndy#1434

WhySoSalty said:

TheTrue_LordAndy said:

WhySoSalty said:

Soo tl;dr you just want to give ALL the remaining characters to the monogods going by your last point + the 4 LL from the upcoming LP aswell

I want to have access to all of them when I play mono gods. What can I say, I got to catch them all...

yeah thats what i thought. you can sum up your wall of text into "i want to play pokemon". well in that case im not the part of your "community" i want to see most of the established chaos characters too but i dont want mindless bloating just for the sake of "catch them all"

I don't think what I am saying is "bloating just for the sake of catch them all". It's not like I am suggesting that Kugath should be able to confederate Valkia or Skarbrand for example.

What is wrong with N'Kari's faction being able to get Sigvald and Azazel somehow?

In terms of my #4 do you think we need more WOC factions after this DLC?

I don't think anyone here would really want the characters I mentioned in Norsca

So I am not sure how my suggestions conflict with how you want to play? If you don't want to confederate or hire a character as a LL then don't (not liking how confederations work is another story)

TheTrue_LordAndy#1434

Valkaar said:

Nyxilis said:

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

Confederations offer WAY more benefits to a Campaign, for both the player directly, and the player fighting the AI, than just collecting LL's. They offer increased incentive and depth to interacting with Diplomacy. They help make sure you're not eternally Strength Rank 1 once you own 3 provinces, they contribute to late game threats, they offer options for more immersive gameplay, uniting regions that your culture should own but shouldn't have to war with your allies to actually possess, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, when they're too easy or happen too frequently, they have drawbacks.

But that's an issue of balancing them. Not removing them for the Campaign. Overall, Confederations are good. They just aren't good in excess or too much ease.

This is true, this is basically how the AI tries to keep up pace with the player. They may be able to tone down some of the AI cheats in this regard (See Empire) agreed, to me it's a balancing issue a s well. I definitely think we need confederations so there is some sort of late game rival (aside from the benefits to your own faction that you mentioned)

Captain_Rex#1635

mecanojavi99 said:

Nyxilis said:

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

Regardless of your opinion on confederations, CA is working on them for WoC, so they will eventually get it.

Archaon will get it.

TheTrue_LordAndy#1434

Nyxilis said:

mecanojavi99 said:

Nyxilis said:

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

Regardless of your opinion on confederations, CA is working on them for WoC, so they will eventually get it.

Also mentioned recruitment of lords from defeated factions.

Also, doesn't mean the policy isn't bad. Regardless of your opinion, it sucks. It's bad. It's a bad mechanic spun by people who want to play pokelords and can't just admit that's their purpose so they continue to support a cancerous bad gameplay inducing easy mode mechanic that has wasted countless hours of development time.

You beat on a target that you'd probably wail on anyways, you drop a ton of gold. Bam you get their armies, heros, lords, territory, and all the stuff and resources the ai spent on it. Lackluster gameplay of easy street for the player and the AI and has done nothing but introduce a vast series of tides.

So I don't care if CA is wasting time on it. If you didn't catch their tone on it they clearly don't view it in high regards because they know exactly what it's for. Pokelords, while realizing the problems it makes for the game. But those players don't care, gotta catch em all. Damn the consequences for the game.

Just because someone wants to collect characters, doesn't automatically mean they don't care about game mechanics/ game play. Nor did i ever say that I want to collect characters at any costs or that would be lore breaking.

Ultimately confederation is a bad mechanic, then just let us recruit relevant LL's if their faction is destroyed. I don't think that hurts gameplay in any way.

Confederations is admitedly a lazy way to get us a late game rival as the AI can not keep up with the player. I would prefer that the AI doesn't abuse confederations like they do now, but given the current state of AI how else do you get a late game rival?

There are issues with the late game (usually order tide) no doubt.

Nyxilis#3646

TheTrue_LordAndy said:

Nyxilis said:

mecanojavi99 said:

Nyxilis said:

1. No, confederations are cancer for the game. They encourage blobbing and the only real reason people desire it is to play poke lords. Confederations though are not the answer, they make for bad AI, snowballing, and tides. Recruit lords upon their faction getting conquered and controlling x location is far better. Stop jumping into it with confederations just for collections.

Stop pushing it just for collections sake, push the better option.

Regardless of your opinion on confederations, CA is working on them for WoC, so they will eventually get it.

Also mentioned recruitment of lords from defeated factions.

Also, doesn't mean the policy isn't bad. Regardless of your opinion, it sucks. It's bad. It's a bad mechanic spun by people who want to play pokelords and can't just admit that's their purpose so they continue to support a cancerous bad gameplay inducing easy mode mechanic that has wasted countless hours of development time.

You beat on a target that you'd probably wail on anyways, you drop a ton of gold. Bam you get their armies, heros, lords, territory, and all the stuff and resources the ai spent on it. Lackluster gameplay of easy street for the player and the AI and has done nothing but introduce a vast series of tides.

So I don't care if CA is wasting time on it. If you didn't catch their tone on it they clearly don't view it in high regards because they know exactly what it's for. Pokelords, while realizing the problems it makes for the game. But those players don't care, gotta catch em all. Damn the consequences for the game.

Just because someone wants to collect characters, doesn't automatically mean they don't care about game mechanics/ game play. Nor did i ever say that I want to collect characters at any costs or that would be lore breaking.

Ultimately confederation is a bad mechanic, then just let us recruit relevant LL's if their faction is destroyed. I don't think that hurts gameplay in any way.

Confederations is admitedly a lazy way to get us a late game rival as the AI can not keep up with the player. I would prefer that the AI doesn't abuse confederations like they do now, but given the current state of AI how else do you get a late game rival?

There are issues with the late game (usually order tide) no doubt.

When they begin to champion certain mechanics without thought to what it does to the rest of the game I'm suspect. When I then hear people above say, 'Okay yeah, it's bad but it's waht we have now'. Yeah, it pretty muchtells me what i need to know there. Because in the majority of conversations I've ever read about on Reddit, here, and other it was about snapping up lords. It was the whole reason people demanded the Red Dukes faction get buffed up. Because they wanted to be able to confederate the Duke. Then they complained to make it easier. Notice a pattern here? The masses that champion confederate will throw the rest of the game under the bus just to collec.t

And I have said that I support allowing lords and heros from conquered factions be recruited where it is loreful. Yet, because so many are stuck on collecting at all costs they run to confederation.

And late game rivals can happen organically without confederation. One time I deliberately sailed up and burned the center of Ulthuan to the ground just to stop the HE from taking over. And to my surprise what do I notice. Norsca is dying off because of Tretch, who conquered all of Naggarond, Ulthuan, and was now hitting Norsca. It was one of the happier moments I had and he did it without confederation blobbing. Just by winning while other factions had koed themselves.

Multiple winners will ultimately emerge in their areas and it will be more often a lil more random when one random faction doesn't suddenly quadruple in size. Winners emerge. In the RoC campaign I actually ended rather hassled by factions who don't confederate or whom didn't in game simply because they won. Nonconfederation doesn't mean there wont be winners but that it wont be either super rapid, or always the same ones. As factions that play along like the HE will always simple be confederation masters unless just nerfed to the floor like Tyrion where now he's a hassle to confederate for HE players. Who now complain because they can't collect Tyrion. They don't say not because they want to have peaceful relations with other elves, or want to confederate their lands but because they wish to collect.

A more RNG built out of victory is simply a better end goal.

TheTrue_LordAndy#1434

Nyxilis said:

When they begin to champion certain mechanics without thought to what it does to the rest of the game I'm suspect. When I then hear people above say, 'Okay yeah, it's bad but it's waht we have now'. Yeah, it pretty muchtells me what i need to know there. Because in the majority of conversations I've ever read about on Reddit, here, and other it was about snapping up lords. It was the whole reason people demanded the Red Dukes faction get buffed up. Because they wanted to be able to confederate the Duke. Then they complained to make it easier. Notice a pattern here? The masses that champion confederate will throw the rest of the game under the bus just to collec.t

And I have said that I support allowing lords and heros from conquered factions be recruited where it is loreful. Yet, because so many are stuck on collecting at all costs they run to confederation.

And late game rivals can happen organically without confederation. One time I deliberately sailed up and burned the center of Ulthuan to the ground just to stop the HE from taking over. And to my surprise what do I notice. Norsca is dying off because of Tretch, who conquered all of Naggarond, Ulthuan, and was now hitting Norsca. It was one of the happier moments I had and he did it without confederation blobbing. Just by winning while other factions had koed themselves.

Multiple winners will ultimately emerge in their areas and it will be more often a lil more random when one random faction doesn't suddenly quadruple in size. Winners emerge. In the RoC campaign I actually ended rather hassled by factions who don't confederate or whom didn't in game simply because they won. Nonconfederation doesn't mean there wont be winners but that it wont be either super rapid, or always the same ones. As factions that play along like the HE will always simple be confederation masters unless just nerfed to the floor like Tyrion where now he's a hassle to confederate for HE players. Who now complain because they can't collect Tyrion. They don't say not because they want to have peaceful relations with other elves, or want to confederate their lands but because they wish to collect.

A more RNG built out of victory is simply a better end goal.

Personally I do disagree with those who want confederations to be easy. I agree that they shouldn't be easy to do. Even if that is someones whole focus I fail to see the satisfaction of being able to confederate whoever they want in a moments notice...perhaps let people playing on easy only do that or something.

Given the size of immortal empires, I can see the potential for late game rivals happening organically more consistently too, because it will take the player forever to get to some parts of the map anyways so the AI has some more time to build up. AI confederations should be nerfed a bit / not be as frequent.

Reeks#2417

Confeds sucks and make the game worse overall

No thanks

Subjugation / recruit defeated LL on the other hand would be alright

Captain_Rex#1635

Reeks said:

Confeds sucks and make the game worse overall

No thanks

Subjugation / recruit defeated LL on the other hand would be alright

Truer words never have been spoken.