Balancing and Feedback, the need to communicate with the playerbase

ODM_Alfredino#5126 · October 2022

Dear Creative Assembly

My name is Alfredino. I am a member of the clan Ordre de Malte (ODM), and am writing on behalf of a consortium of all the major clans in the current multiplayer scene.
The game is currently undergoing a lot of changes, especially for the multiplayer scene. This is to be expected as a result of the merging of the saga to form one of the most complete and thoughtful strategy games on the market. Total War: Warhammer III brought a new competitive game mode, Domination, played alongside Land Battles, and has captured a much larger player base than any previous Total War title in multiplayer. These are positive changes, and we truly appreciate the effort put into improving the multiplayer experience in Warhammer III.

However, these changes also create additional challenges. For example:
• Given that some units, factions and abilities are much stronger in Domination than in Land Battles, and vice versa, how can one game mode be balanced without breaking the other?
• With each new faction added, the number of faction matchups has increased, and will continue to increase, exponentially. How can all of these factions be kept balanced?
• How can you react quickly to bugs and unwanted mechanics that could harm both the campaign and the competitive scene?
On behalf of the major clans in the competitive multiplayer scene, I would like to propose setting up a way for players from the scene to provide feedback to you to help overcome these challenges.

In order to make it simple for you to manage, we suggest that you should have direct contact with two individuals, who, as representatives of clans in the competitive multiplayer scene, will collect feedback from players and pass it on to you. By having two consistent contacts, we hope that this will allow a relationship of trust to develop.
Once sufficient trust has been established, we propose further that these two individuals, and a small, rotating group of eight volunteers chosen by the multiplayer clans on the basis of their skill and character, are granted early access to new content in order to give feedback on balance prior to launch. We appreciate that this is a sensitive subject. Those players will sign whatever agreements are required to ensure information is kept confidential. They will not be streamers or content creators. We will do everything that we can in order to prevent any information leaking, because we understand that if this happens, it would jeopardise our ability to give feedback on the game that we love.

We want to express our deepest regards to the team dedicated to Total War: Warhammer III, and hope that this message is not seen as a criticism of their work. But we also believe that the most important resource the game currently has is its player base. Balancing is such a difficult task, because it takes so much time, effort and understanding of the game. Basing balancing on statistics and on events is workable on a small scale, but with the number of factions and game modes in Total War: Warhammer III, these can only scratch the surface. You have incredible players in the scene, with the collective talent, passion and knowledge to help make this game the best it can be - why not allow them to do so?

Alfredino, current leader of ODM and finalist of the Total War Warhammer World Championship 2021.

yst#1879 · October 2022

Nah absolutely not, dont need anymore biased info from small samples of individual. Its better off a big collective scene.

The balance have been amazing, u can see almost everything on brets r fromt he suggestion here. From men at arms being expendable from the beginning to the multiple green knight buffs, balancing of hips etc. So are many of the factions. Gyrobomber with suppression fire r literally 100% from here suggested by certain players.

So now if ure to do just a single person submitting for example, he can simply omit stuffs he doesnt like.

Not to mention they balance thru statistics where no one has access to, so its not they need ppl to tell them in order to start balance

eumaies#1128 · October 2022

Good effort. I would just point out there's not a real need for you all to have early access, especially if that's the sticking point.

If CA listened to some folks who play the game and did some dedicated work coming up with consensus balance expectations from the prior patch state, that would be 95% of the solution. If they want to release an OP unit or faction as DLC who cares. You can get 95% of the way to balance if you just have an effective dialogue with them and do the work of balancing the hundreds of units and game as it is.

Black_Phillip#5773 · October 2022

Maybe this is too simple but what about polling what units are underperforming? Like for High Elves most people would agree warlions could use a buff. I also think spearmen and silverhelms. They don’t have to listen to the data all the time but it could be useful to consider things they might have missed.

Sarmatianns#6760 · October 2022

I think CA already has a group of players that they are in contact with regarding balancing.

gagginaspinnata#9625 · October 2022

Agree to everything

yuri90#4307 · October 2022

thanks for posting this

#210289 · October 2022

I'm super down with this.

Most of these players as examples have a genuine love for this game the way they enjoy a particularly fulfilling hobby.

While I as a fellow enjoyer might disagree with particulars at times, there's a significant amount of people investing their time in trying to improve the state of the multiplayer scene trhough mods, maps, community hosted tournaments, and stream engagement and that is commendable.

Tricera#1691 · October 2022

This is a good idea! They definitely need more MP voices on balancing if they want to grow the MP scene. Example: Undead buffs. Not very well guided

Dragorosso#4822 · October 2022

There’s merit in this proposal, in my opinion. Good try. Upvoted.

Bloodyjaws#7441 · October 2022

Thanks for posting this, I do agree that some more direct open channels might help a lot with fixes and balances for a team that is already working super hard and super good!

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 · October 2022

Trigger-warning: I do not accept MP land battles as a competitive MP mode and place them alongside FFA's as a casual niche fun sidemode that has no role to play in balancing. If you disagree with this, you probably want to downvote my comment now and save yourself the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I struggle to see why clans/clan members should get an outsized voice in balancing compared to player's without these affiliations. Especially when many clan members have basically decided to stick with playing multiplayer campaign mode (i.e. MP land battles) instead of the actual dedicated multiplayer mode (i.e. Domination)? Not to pick on ODM here, but these days if you have an "ODM" tag in front of your username then more often than not (with a few notable exceptions) it means that you don't play Domination as the majority of your gameplay and are therefore not a competitive multiplayer player.

And yes, you read that correctly. If you play land battles more than you play Domination, you are by definition not a competitive multiplayer player as land battles are not a competitive multiplayer mode in comparison to Domination. I'm not saying this to be mean to ODM players as off the top of my head there are 3 players in ODM who are some of the best multiplayer players out there (Enticity, Xiphos, Zone). And I'm sure many other members of ODM have the capacity to be top-tier Domination players if they were to play. But we are long past the point now where being good at land battles means a thing in terms of MP.

So in terms of this question:

> Given that some units, factions and abilities are much stronger in Domination than in Land Battles, and vice versa, how can one game mode be balanced without breaking the other?

The real answer is that as far as balancing is concerned there are two important things to consider: How does it impact Campaign and how does it impact competitive/supported multiplayer AKA Domination. Multiplayer land battles are a casual mode that sit alongside FFA's and do not factor into balancing decisions. If a player prefers them and like to play them, then godspeed and enjoy. But the attempted elevation of land battles to be on equal footing as Domination in terms of both gameplay quality or multiplayer prestige is becoming farcical at this point.

As an example, if I were to start a clan around playing competitive FFA's would my clan also get to be included in this balancing advice system? Of course not, because FFA's are not a competitive mode and are not being balanced around. This is the exact situation with MP land battles at this point, they are a niche side mode for casual play. The balancing targets are (as they should be) a satisfying campaign experience and a satisfying multiplayer experience which as a start point begins with focusing on the mode that has an actual competitive multiplayer design.

So to bring it around full circle to the question of "Should clans/clan members have an outsized voice in balancing?" the answer is a clear "No". Being in a clan doesn't tell you anything about a player at this point, you don't even know if they are actual competitive multiplayer players. The system we have now with an open forum where ideas can be submitted by anyone and judged on their merits is far superior.

And to be 100% clear, the method I am using to determine whether or not someone is a competitive multiplayer player is a fair and consistent one that is applied equally to all whether they are in a clan or not. It is a test with one simple question: "Do you play the competitive multiplayer mode and is that what you base your balancing suggestions off?".

If the answer is "Yes", then great news and your opinion deserves a fair airing and consideration. However if the answer is "No", then those opinions will be treated in the same way as suggestions based on FFA balance or modded gameplay balance: not relevant in these discussions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may have sounded a bit harsh and I know the proposed OP was done in a spirit of improving the game so want to clarify that I find the intention admirable and nothing above is intended as a slight towards him/clans/other players. However when we are in a situation like we are currently where having a clantag in front of your name (with the exception of RTK/VM) more often than not means that you aren't a competitive multiplayer player, there really isn't any plausible justification for a system like this. Although tbf even if all clans were 100% certified competitive players I still would disagree with this as the current system of allowing anyone who plays to have a voice is much superior as good ideas come from everywhere, not just players who decide to join a clan.

I'm sure CA and others would be very interested in seeing a collated set of balancing suggestions from players who have views that align with their own (i.e. accept Domination is the future are base their suggestions on that premise). But that can be done without requiring back channels and CA have recently even changed up the forum with the new "Battle Ideas" section to allow for submissions along these lines.

yst#1879 · October 2022

All new factions r balanced with domination as core design. Period.

Theres a reason why domination is the ONLY mode since release only until recently where they put land to cater for casual players

U wanna change that may as well delete dom so we can all go back to draw kiting, corner camps and running around with toxic pure cav build and label that competitive

Black_Phillip#5773 · October 2022

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:
Trigger-warning: This player does not accept MP land battles as a competitive MP mode and places them alongside FFA's as a casual niche fun sidemode that has no role to play in balancing. If you disagree with this, you probably want to downvote now and save yourself the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I struggle to see why clans/clan members should get an outsized voice in balancing compared to player's without these affiliations. Especially when many clan members have basically decided to stick with playing multiplayer campaign mode (i.e. MP land battles) instead of the actual dedicated multiplayer mode (i.e. Domination)? Not to pick on ODM here, but these days if you have an "ODM" tag in front of your username then more often than not (with a few notable exceptions) it means that you don't play Domination as the majority of your gameplay and are therefore not a competitive multiplayer player.

And yes, you read that correctly. If you play land battles more than you play Domination, you are by definition not a competitive multiplayer player as land battles are not a competitive multiplayer mode in comparison to Domination. I'm not saying this to be mean to ODM players as off the top of my head there are 3 players in ODM who are some of the best multiplayer players out there (Enticity, Xiphos, Zone). And I'm sure many other members of ODM have the capacity to be top-tier Domination players if they were to play. But we are long past the point now where being good at land battles means a thing in terms of MP.

So in terms of this question:

> Given that some units, factions and abilities are much stronger in Domination than in Land Battles, and vice versa, how can one game mode be balanced without breaking the other?

The real answer is that as far as balancing is concerned there are two important things to consider: How does it impact Campaign and how does it impact competitive/supported multiplayer AKA Domination. Multiplayer land battles are a casual mode that sit alongside FFA's and do not factor into balancing decisions. If a player prefers them and like to play them, then godspeed and enjoy. But the attempted elevation of land battles to be on equal footing as Domination in terms of both gameplay quality or multiplayer prestige is becoming farcical at this point.

As an example, if I were to start a clan around playing competitive FFA's would my clan also get to be included in this balancing advice system? Of course not, because FFA's are not a competitive mode and are not being balanced around. This is the exact situation with MP land battles at this point, they are a niche side mode for casual play. The balancing targets are (as they should be) a satisfying campaign experience and a satisfying multiplayer experience which as a start point begins with focusing on the mode that has an actual competitive multiplayer design.

So to bring it around full circle to the question of "Should clans/clan members have an outsized voice in balancing?" the answer is a clear "No". Being in a clan doesn't tell you anything about a player at this point, you don't even know if they are actual competitive multiplayer players. The system we have now with an open forum where ideas can be submitted by anyone and judged on their merits is far superior.

And to be 100% clear, the method I am using to determine whether or not someone is a competitive multiplayer player is a fair and consistent one that is applied equally to all whether they are in a clan or not. It is a test with one simple question: "Do you play the competitive multiplayer mode and is that what you base your balancing suggestions off?".

If the answer is "Yes", then great news and your opinion deserves a fair airing and consideration. However if the answer is "No", then those opinions will be treated in the same way as suggestions based on FFA balance or modded gameplay balance: not relevant in these discussions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may have sounded a bit harsh and I know the proposed OP was done in a spirit of improving the game so want to clarify that I find the intention admirable and nothing above is intended as a slight towards him/clans/other players. However when we are in a situation like we are currently where having a clantag in front of your name (with the exception of RTK/VM) more often than not means that you aren't a competitive multiplayer player, there really isn't any plausible justification for a system like this. Although tbf even if all clans were 100% certified competitive players I still would disagree with this as the current system of allowing anyone who plays to have a voice is much superior as good ideas come from everywhere, not just players who decide to join a clan.

I'm sure CA and others would be very interested in seeing a collated set of balancing suggestions from players who have views that align with their own (i.e. accept Domination is the future are base their suggestions on that premise). But that can be done without requiring back channels and CA have recently even changed up the forum with the new "Battle Ideas" section to allow for submissions along these lines.

CA original intention was to make Domination the primary multiplayer mode but they then added Landbattles to the Quickbattle queue for a reason. That reason there was a large enough group of people that disliked Domination and really wanted Landbattles back. FFA is not at all an apt comparison. Noone really has been clamoring for FFA quickbattles. I think you can still balance around both modes. If it would help, maybe make the modes more similar like adding capture points to landbattles, which is something a lot of landbattle players have been asking for. I don't know where his idea that Domination has to be the only competitive mode like it's written in stone is coming from. CA has been trying to be receptive to the wishes of Multiplayer players. Next patch they're splitting Domination and Landbattles into two different queues as requested. So as long as Landbattles has a large player base relative to Domination CA will want to give that mode attention too. To me it seems there's a large enough group in both camps.

Black_Phillip#5773 · October 2022

yst#1879 said:
All new factions r balanced with domination as core design. Period.

Theres a reason why domination is the ONLY mode since release only until recently where they put land to cater for casual players

U wanna change that may as well delete dom so we can all go back to draw kiting, corner camps and running around with toxic pure cav build and label that competitive

Who are all the people experiencing draw kiting, corner campers, and pure cav builds? I haven't had it happen once in all of WH3's cycle and I play Land Battles solely pretty much. Can we stop straw manning modes we don't like and have an honest conversation? Sure it can happen but I still prefer that risk because to me it's more fun for the goal to be simply to kill the enemy army rather than holding capture points while individual units trickle in until a timer runs out.

#210289 · October 2022

Black_Phillip#5773 said:

yst#1879 said:
All new factions r balanced with domination as core design. Period.

Theres a reason why domination is the ONLY mode since release only until recently where they put land to cater for casual players

U wanna change that may as well delete dom so we can all go back to draw kiting, corner camps and running around with toxic pure cav build and label that competitive
Who are all the people experiencing draw kiting, corner campers, and pure cav builds? I haven't had it happen once in all of WH3's cycle and I play Land Battles solely pretty much. Can we stop straw manning modes we don't like and have an honest conversation? Sure it can happen but I still prefer that risk because to me it's more fun for the goal to be simply to kill the enemy army rather than holding capture points while individual units trickle in until a timer runs out.

I have had this happen plenty of times.

Landbattles will never be a sound competitive game mode in it's current form and the only reason it's lasted so long is because no alternative was present and players did the equivalent of monkey-wrenching qualitative rules into the game mode.

A competitive video game mode needs to be able to operate without a qualitative ruleset or good luck ever getting sponsors or moving beyond the 'enough fans to fill a high school gymnasium only' stage.

Just the reality of it.

The last time there was a major viewed landbattle event, there were 'rulebreaks' in the final round and it completely derailed the entire tournament.

Meanwhile domination hasn't had a single hiccup in terms of running a tournament, only in terms of the state of it's quantitative balancing.

Qualitative rules = Subjective, rules are divided into types, and can be interpreted differently by the playerbase. This results in a lot of tension and frustration when combined with competition.

Example: 'No Corner Camping.' (How far is a corner camp, what is a corner camp, what's the required distance not to corner camp?. All nebulous and can be ruled in many different never easily defined ways.)

Quantitative rules = Numerical. There is zero subjectivity to these rules or room for interpretation. You are either following them as a player or you are not.

Example: This tournament does not permit tomb kings, vampire counts, or Chaos.

It's been established very obviously that landbattles cannot be played without qualitative rules without a significant drop in the quality and viewership of the games observed. **Domination simply does not have that problem.**

Note that while it may be possible to rebalance landbattle to have a competitive spirit to it, in it's current incarnation it's going to get laughed out of a sponsor's room.

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 · October 2022

Black_Phillip#5773 said:

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:
Trigger-warning: This player does not accept MP land battles as a competitive MP mode and places them alongside FFA's as a casual niche fun sidemode that has no role to play in balancing. If you disagree with this, you probably want to downvote now and save yourself the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I struggle to see why clans/clan members should get an outsized voice in balancing compared to player's without these affiliations. Especially when many clan members have basically decided to stick with playing multiplayer campaign mode (i.e. MP land battles) instead of the actual dedicated multiplayer mode (i.e. Domination)? Not to pick on ODM here, but these days if you have an "ODM" tag in front of your username then more often than not (with a few notable exceptions) it means that you don't play Domination as the majority of your gameplay and are therefore not a competitive multiplayer player.

And yes, you read that correctly. If you play land battles more than you play Domination, you are by definition not a competitive multiplayer player as land battles are not a competitive multiplayer mode in comparison to Domination. I'm not saying this to be mean to ODM players as off the top of my head there are 3 players in ODM who are some of the best multiplayer players out there (Enticity, Xiphos, Zone). And I'm sure many other members of ODM have the capacity to be top-tier Domination players if they were to play. But we are long past the point now where being good at land battles means a thing in terms of MP.

So in terms of this question:

> Given that some units, factions and abilities are much stronger in Domination than in Land Battles, and vice versa, how can one game mode be balanced without breaking the other?

The real answer is that as far as balancing is concerned there are two important things to consider: How does it impact Campaign and how does it impact competitive/supported multiplayer AKA Domination. Multiplayer land battles are a casual mode that sit alongside FFA's and do not factor into balancing decisions. If a player prefers them and like to play them, then godspeed and enjoy. But the attempted elevation of land battles to be on equal footing as Domination in terms of both gameplay quality or multiplayer prestige is becoming farcical at this point.

As an example, if I were to start a clan around playing competitive FFA's would my clan also get to be included in this balancing advice system? Of course not, because FFA's are not a competitive mode and are not being balanced around. This is the exact situation with MP land battles at this point, they are a niche side mode for casual play. The balancing targets are (as they should be) a satisfying campaign experience and a satisfying multiplayer experience which as a start point begins with focusing on the mode that has an actual competitive multiplayer design.

So to bring it around full circle to the question of "Should clans/clan members have an outsized voice in balancing?" the answer is a clear "No". Being in a clan doesn't tell you anything about a player at this point, you don't even know if they are actual competitive multiplayer players. The system we have now with an open forum where ideas can be submitted by anyone and judged on their merits is far superior.

And to be 100% clear, the method I am using to determine whether or not someone is a competitive multiplayer player is a fair and consistent one that is applied equally to all whether they are in a clan or not. It is a test with one simple question: "Do you play the competitive multiplayer mode and is that what you base your balancing suggestions off?".

If the answer is "Yes", then great news and your opinion deserves a fair airing and consideration. However if the answer is "No", then those opinions will be treated in the same way as suggestions based on FFA balance or modded gameplay balance: not relevant in these discussions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may have sounded a bit harsh and I know the proposed OP was done in a spirit of improving the game so want to clarify that I find the intention admirable and nothing above is intended as a slight towards him/clans/other players. However when we are in a situation like we are currently where having a clantag in front of your name (with the exception of RTK/VM) more often than not means that you aren't a competitive multiplayer player, there really isn't any plausible justification for a system like this. Although tbf even if all clans were 100% certified competitive players I still would disagree with this as the current system of allowing anyone who plays to have a voice is much superior as good ideas come from everywhere, not just players who decide to join a clan.

I'm sure CA and others would be very interested in seeing a collated set of balancing suggestions from players who have views that align with their own (i.e. accept Domination is the future are base their suggestions on that premise). But that can be done without requiring back channels and CA have recently even changed up the forum with the new "Battle Ideas" section to allow for submissions along these lines.
CA original intention was to make Domination the primary multiplayer mode but they then added Landbattles to the Quickbattle queue for a reason. That reason there was a large enough group of people that disliked Domination and really wanted Landbattles back. FFA is not at all an apt comparison. Noone really has been clamoring for FFA quickbattles. I think you can still balance around both modes. If it would help, maybe make the modes more similar like adding capture points to landbattles, which is something a lot of landbattle players have been asking for. I don't know where his idea that Domination has to be the only competitive mode like it's written in stone is coming from. CA has been trying to be receptive to the wishes of Multiplayer players. Next patch they're splitting Domination and Landbattles into two different queues as requested. So as long as Landbattles has a large player base relative to Domination CA will want to give that mode attention too. To me it seems there's a large enough group in both camps.

I will consider land battles and Domination on equal footing as competitive modes when the following happens:

1. No external rules are needed to moderate match outcomes/gameplay in matches (i.e. no attacking rules at all)
2. CA hosts/supports an official major tourney in the land battle format post-Domination release (e.g. tournaments hosted prior to game 3 don't count)

There are other factors that make Domination more competitive (and a better design) than land battles such as no blind pick but as these are arguably more subjective I won't include them in the list. So until both of the above criteria are met, claiming that land battles are an equal competitor to Domination as a competitive standard is nonsense. If players want to play land battles then they should go for it and I hope they enjoy them but LARPing as competitive multiplayer players while doing it is just silliness.

As it stands there is one competitive multiplayer mode and that is Domination. There is one set of competitive multiplayer players and that is Domination players. I agree that this could in theory change in the future but based on where we are now, these are just the facts.

saweendra#3399 · October 2022

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:

Black_Phillip#5773 said:

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:
Trigger-warning: This player does not accept MP land battles as a competitive MP mode and places them alongside FFA's as a casual niche fun sidemode that has no role to play in balancing. If you disagree with this, you probably want to downvote now and save yourself the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I struggle to see why clans/clan members should get an outsized voice in balancing compared to player's without these affiliations. Especially when many clan members have basically decided to stick with playing multiplayer campaign mode (i.e. MP land battles) instead of the actual dedicated multiplayer mode (i.e. Domination)? Not to pick on ODM here, but these days if you have an "ODM" tag in front of your username then more often than not (with a few notable exceptions) it means that you don't play Domination as the majority of your gameplay and are therefore not a competitive multiplayer player.

And yes, you read that correctly. If you play land battles more than you play Domination, you are by definition not a competitive multiplayer player as land battles are not a competitive multiplayer mode in comparison to Domination. I'm not saying this to be mean to ODM players as off the top of my head there are 3 players in ODM who are some of the best multiplayer players out there (Enticity, Xiphos, Zone). And I'm sure many other members of ODM have the capacity to be top-tier Domination players if they were to play. But we are long past the point now where being good at land battles means a thing in terms of MP.

So in terms of this question:

> Given that some units, factions and abilities are much stronger in Domination than in Land Battles, and vice versa, how can one game mode be balanced without breaking the other?

The real answer is that as far as balancing is concerned there are two important things to consider: How does it impact Campaign and how does it impact competitive/supported multiplayer AKA Domination. Multiplayer land battles are a casual mode that sit alongside FFA's and do not factor into balancing decisions. If a player prefers them and like to play them, then godspeed and enjoy. But the attempted elevation of land battles to be on equal footing as Domination in terms of both gameplay quality or multiplayer prestige is becoming farcical at this point.

As an example, if I were to start a clan around playing competitive FFA's would my clan also get to be included in this balancing advice system? Of course not, because FFA's are not a competitive mode and are not being balanced around. This is the exact situation with MP land battles at this point, they are a niche side mode for casual play. The balancing targets are (as they should be) a satisfying campaign experience and a satisfying multiplayer experience which as a start point begins with focusing on the mode that has an actual competitive multiplayer design.

So to bring it around full circle to the question of "Should clans/clan members have an outsized voice in balancing?" the answer is a clear "No". Being in a clan doesn't tell you anything about a player at this point, you don't even know if they are actual competitive multiplayer players. The system we have now with an open forum where ideas can be submitted by anyone and judged on their merits is far superior.

And to be 100% clear, the method I am using to determine whether or not someone is a competitive multiplayer player is a fair and consistent one that is applied equally to all whether they are in a clan or not. It is a test with one simple question: "Do you play the competitive multiplayer mode and is that what you base your balancing suggestions off?".

If the answer is "Yes", then great news and your opinion deserves a fair airing and consideration. However if the answer is "No", then those opinions will be treated in the same way as suggestions based on FFA balance or modded gameplay balance: not relevant in these discussions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may have sounded a bit harsh and I know the proposed OP was done in a spirit of improving the game so want to clarify that I find the intention admirable and nothing above is intended as a slight towards him/clans/other players. However when we are in a situation like we are currently where having a clantag in front of your name (with the exception of RTK/VM) more often than not means that you aren't a competitive multiplayer player, there really isn't any plausible justification for a system like this. Although tbf even if all clans were 100% certified competitive players I still would disagree with this as the current system of allowing anyone who plays to have a voice is much superior as good ideas come from everywhere, not just players who decide to join a clan.

I'm sure CA and others would be very interested in seeing a collated set of balancing suggestions from players who have views that align with their own (i.e. accept Domination is the future are base their suggestions on that premise). But that can be done without requiring back channels and CA have recently even changed up the forum with the new "Battle Ideas" section to allow for submissions along these lines.
CA original intention was to make Domination the primary multiplayer mode but they then added Landbattles to the Quickbattle queue for a reason. That reason there was a large enough group of people that disliked Domination and really wanted Landbattles back. FFA is not at all an apt comparison. Noone really has been clamoring for FFA quickbattles. I think you can still balance around both modes. If it would help, maybe make the modes more similar like adding capture points to landbattles, which is something a lot of landbattle players have been asking for. I don't know where his idea that Domination has to be the only competitive mode like it's written in stone is coming from. CA has been trying to be receptive to the wishes of Multiplayer players. Next patch they're splitting Domination and Landbattles into two different queues as requested. So as long as Landbattles has a large player base relative to Domination CA will want to give that mode attention too. To me it seems there's a large enough group in both camps.
I will consider land battles and Domination on equal footing as competitive modes when the following happens:

1. No external rules are needed to moderate match outcomes/gameplay in matches (i.e. no attacking rules at all)
2. CA hosts/supports an official major tourney in the land battle format post-Domination release (e.g. tournaments hosted prior to game 3 don't count)

There are other factors that make Domination more competitive (and a better design) than land battles such as no blind pick but as these are arguably more subjective I won't include them in the list. So until both of the above criteria are met, claiming that land battles are an equal competitor to Domination as a competitive standard is nonsense. If players want to play land battles then they should go for it and I hope they enjoy them but LARPing as competitive multiplayer players while doing it is just silliness.

As it stands there is one competitive multiplayer mode and that is Domination. There is one set of competitive multiplayer players and that is Domination players. I agree that this could in theory change in the future but based on where we are now, these are just the facts.

Good and the only way i will personally accept any balance from dom is when CA converts it to land battles with CP

Black_Phillip#5773 · October 2022

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:

Black_Phillip#5773 said:

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:
Trigger-warning: This player does not accept MP land battles as a competitive MP mode and places them alongside FFA's as a casual niche fun sidemode that has no role to play in balancing. If you disagree with this, you probably want to downvote now and save yourself the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I struggle to see why clans/clan members should get an outsized voice in balancing compared to player's without these affiliations. Especially when many clan members have basically decided to stick with playing multiplayer campaign mode (i.e. MP land battles) instead of the actual dedicated multiplayer mode (i.e. Domination)? Not to pick on ODM here, but these days if you have an "ODM" tag in front of your username then more often than not (with a few notable exceptions) it means that you don't play Domination as the majority of your gameplay and are therefore not a competitive multiplayer player.

And yes, you read that correctly. If you play land battles more than you play Domination, you are by definition not a competitive multiplayer player as land battles are not a competitive multiplayer mode in comparison to Domination. I'm not saying this to be mean to ODM players as off the top of my head there are 3 players in ODM who are some of the best multiplayer players out there (Enticity, Xiphos, Zone). And I'm sure many other members of ODM have the capacity to be top-tier Domination players if they were to play. But we are long past the point now where being good at land battles means a thing in terms of MP.

So in terms of this question:

> Given that some units, factions and abilities are much stronger in Domination than in Land Battles, and vice versa, how can one game mode be balanced without breaking the other?

The real answer is that as far as balancing is concerned there are two important things to consider: How does it impact Campaign and how does it impact competitive/supported multiplayer AKA Domination. Multiplayer land battles are a casual mode that sit alongside FFA's and do not factor into balancing decisions. If a player prefers them and like to play them, then godspeed and enjoy. But the attempted elevation of land battles to be on equal footing as Domination in terms of both gameplay quality or multiplayer prestige is becoming farcical at this point.

As an example, if I were to start a clan around playing competitive FFA's would my clan also get to be included in this balancing advice system? Of course not, because FFA's are not a competitive mode and are not being balanced around. This is the exact situation with MP land battles at this point, they are a niche side mode for casual play. The balancing targets are (as they should be) a satisfying campaign experience and a satisfying multiplayer experience which as a start point begins with focusing on the mode that has an actual competitive multiplayer design.

So to bring it around full circle to the question of "Should clans/clan members have an outsized voice in balancing?" the answer is a clear "No". Being in a clan doesn't tell you anything about a player at this point, you don't even know if they are actual competitive multiplayer players. The system we have now with an open forum where ideas can be submitted by anyone and judged on their merits is far superior.

And to be 100% clear, the method I am using to determine whether or not someone is a competitive multiplayer player is a fair and consistent one that is applied equally to all whether they are in a clan or not. It is a test with one simple question: "Do you play the competitive multiplayer mode and is that what you base your balancing suggestions off?".

If the answer is "Yes", then great news and your opinion deserves a fair airing and consideration. However if the answer is "No", then those opinions will be treated in the same way as suggestions based on FFA balance or modded gameplay balance: not relevant in these discussions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may have sounded a bit harsh and I know the proposed OP was done in a spirit of improving the game so want to clarify that I find the intention admirable and nothing above is intended as a slight towards him/clans/other players. However when we are in a situation like we are currently where having a clantag in front of your name (with the exception of RTK/VM) more often than not means that you aren't a competitive multiplayer player, there really isn't any plausible justification for a system like this. Although tbf even if all clans were 100% certified competitive players I still would disagree with this as the current system of allowing anyone who plays to have a voice is much superior as good ideas come from everywhere, not just players who decide to join a clan.

I'm sure CA and others would be very interested in seeing a collated set of balancing suggestions from players who have views that align with their own (i.e. accept Domination is the future are base their suggestions on that premise). But that can be done without requiring back channels and CA have recently even changed up the forum with the new "Battle Ideas" section to allow for submissions along these lines.
CA original intention was to make Domination the primary multiplayer mode but they then added Landbattles to the Quickbattle queue for a reason. That reason there was a large enough group of people that disliked Domination and really wanted Landbattles back. FFA is not at all an apt comparison. Noone really has been clamoring for FFA quickbattles. I think you can still balance around both modes. If it would help, maybe make the modes more similar like adding capture points to landbattles, which is something a lot of landbattle players have been asking for. I don't know where his idea that Domination has to be the only competitive mode like it's written in stone is coming from. CA has been trying to be receptive to the wishes of Multiplayer players. Next patch they're splitting Domination and Landbattles into two different queues as requested. So as long as Landbattles has a large player base relative to Domination CA will want to give that mode attention too. To me it seems there's a large enough group in both camps.
I will consider land battles and Domination on equal footing as competitive modes when the following happens:

1. No external rules are needed to moderate match outcomes/gameplay in matches (i.e. no attacking rules at all)
2. CA hosts/supports an official major tourney in the land battle format post-Domination release (e.g. tournaments hosted prior to game 3 don't count)

There are other factors that make Domination more competitive (and a better design) than land battles such as no blind pick but as these are arguably more subjective I won't include them in the list. So until both of the above criteria are met, claiming that land battles are an equal competitor to Domination as a competitive standard is nonsense. If players want to play land battles then they should go for it and I hope they enjoy them but LARPing as competitive multiplayer players while doing it is just silliness.

As it stands there is one competitive multiplayer mode and that is Domination. There is one set of competitive multiplayer players and that is Domination players. I agree that this could in theory change in the future but based on where we are now, these are just the facts.

I was just talking about quickbattles not tournaments, which the multiplayer community like Turin is much more responsible for than CA. Not requiring external rules obviously makes a mode better for tournaments. Which is why so many landbattle players are asking for capture points. You may think that unlikely to happen but if enough players clamor for it I don't see what would keep CA from implementing it.

saweendra#3399 · October 2022

Dagonlives said:

Black_Phillip#5773 said:

yst#1879 said:
All new factions r balanced with domination as core design. Period.

Theres a reason why domination is the ONLY mode since release only until recently where they put land to cater for casual players

U wanna change that may as well delete dom so we can all go back to draw kiting, corner camps and running around with toxic pure cav build and label that competitive
Who are all the people experiencing draw kiting, corner campers, and pure cav builds? I haven't had it happen once in all of WH3's cycle and I play Land Battles solely pretty much. Can we stop straw manning modes we don't like and have an honest conversation? Sure it can happen but I still prefer that risk because to me it's more fun for the goal to be simply to kill the enemy army rather than holding capture points while individual units trickle in until a timer runs out.

I have had this happen plenty of times.

Landbattles will never be a sound competitive game mode in it's current form and the only reason it's lasted so long is because no alternative was present and players did the equivalent of monkey-wrenching qualitative rules into the game mode.

A competitive video game mode needs to be able to operate without a qualitative ruleset or good luck ever getting sponsors or moving beyond the 'enough fans to fill a high school gymnasium only' stage.

Just the reality of it.

The last time there was a major viewed landbattle event, there were 'rulebreaks' in the final round and it completely derailed the entire tournament.

Meanwhile domination hasn't had a single hiccup in terms of running a tournament, only in terms of the state of it's quantitative balancing.

Qualitative rules = Subjective, rules are divided into types, and can be interpreted differently by the playerbase. This results in a lot of tension and frustration when combined with competition.

Example: 'No Corner Camping.' (How far is a corner camp, what is a corner camp, what's the required distance not to corner camp?. All nebulous and can be ruled in many different never easily defined ways.)

Quantitative rules = Numerical. There is zero subjectivity to these rules or room for interpretation. You are either following them as a player or you are not.

Example: This tournament does not permit tomb kings, vampire counts, or Chaos.

It's been established very obviously that landbattles cannot be played without qualitative rules without a significant drop in the quality and viewership of the games observed. **Domination simply does not have that problem.**

Note that while it may be possible to rebalance landbattle to have a competitive spirit to it, in it's current incarnation it's going to get laughed out of a sponsor's room.

So where is this magical sponsor ships at the mode has been out for nearly year and there is no noatble growth In the Mp scene?

Pippington#5795 · October 2022

All this talk about which mode is 'competitive' would have some relevance if competition was the only thing worth balancing the game for.

As it is, the leaderboard has remained broken since release, and as was remarked the tourney community could still fit in a school gym, so I've got to suspect that CA is balancing for what the vast majority of players play MP for, i.e. making the game fun. Which applies equally whatever game mode you're playing.

The provision of LB on ladder (a full 50% of the time now, and with its own dedicated ladder in future) definitely seems like CA intend people to play it, and if they intend people to play it you'd hope they intend it to be fun. Trying to crowbar Which Game Mode Is Best into the discussion just feels like raking over old grudges.

Shoggunik#9002 · October 2022

Pippington#5795 said:
All this talk about which mode is 'competitive' would have some relevance if competition was the only thing worth balancing the game for.

As it is, the leaderboard has remained broken since release, and as was remarked the tourney community could still fit in a school gym, so I've got to suspect that CA is balancing for what the vast majority of players play MP for, i.e. making the game fun. Which applies equally whatever game mode you're playing.

The provision of LB on ladder (a full 50% of the time now, and with its own dedicated ladder in future) definitely seems like CA intend people to play it, and if they intend people to play it you'd hope they intend it to be fun. Trying to crowbar Which Game Mode Is Best into the discussion just feels like raking over old grudges.

With that said, this is why I'm against presented idea. While I enjoy competitive play, I'm even part of smaller clan, I'm afraid that this way would be too focused on what is desirable by top level players. And the game played at the top is not the same as the game played on the noob level. Top players will take into account dodging, kiting, microing unit properly. And on noob level this will be irrelevant, so that could easily cause unfun environment for casual players who are still majority of the scene even if invisible.

ODM_Alfredino#5126 · October 2022

Hey everyone !
Coming back on what has been discussed in this thread, I would like to point out that first, this isn't about which mod is better. So for those who want to discuss more about it you should probably find the discussion somewhere else (since I'm sure it exists).
I would also like to defend the post, or at least clarify it. Why should clans run this ? Did the post say that it would be run by clans in the first place ? Nope. Clans were voicing it out as it could be a way for us to be heard, hoping for some changes. If we get two trusted people in direct contact with CA (btw those guy don't have to be part of a clan) and a rotation of 8 good players we don't expect nor want to create a cabal scheming on our own. Transparency will be our main focus.
That being said, clans have the history, the "infrastructure" and generally an healthy ammount of competitive players so they are probably some of the most active and efficient organizations you could find on the mp scene in this game. You could of course start a project without the help of a clan and without the help of a streamer/big organizer, but in the end it's going to be rough.
About balancing now. Having concerns about the people being bias towards a faction and such is first assuming that the group would have a big influence in the final say and the decision making. I'm not expecting any of that to be frank, if anything the group would be able to bring the spotlight to things that are problematic. Trust is always hard to earn, I'm not expecting anything at first really. Also, I really want to point out the fact that there is a rotation of players. Even if despite all the safeguards we end up with bias individuals inside the group, they will get replaced eventually or kicked out if it's unworkable.
I hope this solve some of the issues discussed earlier.

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 · October 2022

Pippington#5795 said:
All this talk about which mode is 'competitive' would have some relevance if competition was the only thing worth balancing the game for.

As it is, the leaderboard has remained broken since release, and as was remarked the tourney community could still fit in a school gym, so I've got to suspect that CA is balancing for what the vast majority of players play MP for, i.e. making the game fun. Which applies equally whatever game mode you're playing.

The provision of LB on ladder (a full 50% of the time now, and with its own dedicated ladder in future) definitely seems like CA intend people to play it, and if they intend people to play it you'd hope they intend it to be fun. Trying to crowbar Which Game Mode Is Best into the discussion just feels like raking over old grudges.

There is nothing at odds between balancing for competitiveness and balancing for fun in regards to multiplayer. You could certainly go too far in one direction or the other but the least fun thing in any multiplayer environment is things that are broken or overpowered and what determines what is broken/overpowered is heavily determined by the game mode. And possibly the 2nd least fun thing is when things are underpowered and become unusable in a multiplayer environment.

As an example, in a recent stream Turin got in a discussion about Soulfire Bombardment (the Volkmar/Arch Lector/Warrior Priest ability). I can't remember the exact details but someone in chat had said it was OP in land battles while Turin was saying it was maybe OP in land battles but in Domination it was at best usable and didn't warrant nerfs. And it is easy to see how these differences in opinions can be had, in land battles matches very frequently end up with a single group of tattered blobbed units in the end game which is perfect for soulfire bombardment to clean up. And the player needs to kill that Warrior priest to end/win the match so the counterplay is much more heavily limited in land battles especially by the late game where many tools are off the battlefield.

Whereas in Domination a "winning position" virtually always assumes control of multiple points which means for a unit like the warrior priest they can only be involved in one engagement of multiple potential engagements around the map and on top of that the type of unit soulfire bombardment is perfect at clearing (infantry) will in many, if not most, instances actually be outcapping the warrior priest on the point further reducing the overall value of the unit/ability.

So what is the "fun" balancing decision here? Nerfing soulfire so that it is balanced in land battles but unusable in domination? Or leaving it as is so it is balanced in domination but overpowered in land battles?

On top of this as mentioned by @Shoggunik#9002, you have the issue of what is balanced (or fun) at low/mid/top level play. This is a problem in any game or game mode but is even worse in land battles where virtually all top level land battle players play with an opt-in ruleset so the difference between what the average player experiences on ladder and what the best players experience in private lobbies is quite a different experience. Domination doesn't have this issue.

There is no "old grudge" here to be raked over nor is this an unimportant point being crowbarred into a discussion that it doesn't belong. The exact same balancing conditions that have existed as soon as there were two MP modes with any type of serious player count mean that the same issue is going to continually arise when balance is discussed because in a multiplayer environment balance plays a massive role in determining what will be a fun experience for both players.

So I'm going to have to disagree with the implication of your comment here which appears to be that the competitiveness of the mode should have no substantial bearing on the direction or approach to balance. Because unfortunately the situation we are in is one where balancing for MP often ends up being a zero-sum game between domination and land battles like in the soulfire bombardment example above. And this problem exists regardless of whether CA's vision for MP is that everyone plays 100% land battles, 100% domination, or a 50/50 split.

If CA intend to balance off MP land battles then they should implement whatever fix is determined to be needed to make them a competitive mode. But as it stands land battles are not a competitive mode as they can't be played in the absence of external rulesets determining fair play. And seeing as the balancing suggestions based on land battles are primarily coming from player's who have opted into a specific ruleset (and that ruleset heavily leans towards favouring the views of European/North American players who understand English) there is no good reason currently to be balancing off land battles especially if it will be to the potential detriment of the functional multiplayer mode. (and by "functional" here I mean exclusively "no external rulesets required", not other aspects of Domination that make me prefer it).

saweendra#3399 · October 2022

Yeah nerf soul fire and buff it same time ..

It should do ton of damage but it should be limited ability.

So its not a actual mortis engine in time or lower the damage if it stays the same.

As for dom we can talk about that after we finally reach end of its evolution

saweendra#3399 · October 2022

Inappropriate Comment removed.

But all of you do get that next patch dead units will stay dead.

That is gonna cause lot of cascading issues and finally open its path to converting to land battles with capture points.

So balancing for dom is beyond idiotic when the final balance of the mode is not even finalized.

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 · October 2022

saweendra#3399 said:
Yeah nerf soul fire and buff it same time ..

It should do ton of damage but it should be limited ability.

So its not a actual mortis engine in time or lower the damage if it stays the same.

As for dom we can talk about that after we finally reach end of its evolution

This is in many ways a perfect example of what I mean.

Soulfire Bombardment opinions:

- Campaign: Fine
- Domination: Fine
- MP Land Battles: Overpowered

Nerfing Soulfire Bombardment will make it:

- Campaign: Underpowered
- Domination: Underpowered
- MP Land Battles: Fine

It could be rebalanced but how many hours are CA going to expend rebalancing every ability that is overpowered in MP land battles (there are many such abilities as SEMs in general are already overpowered in land battles and lords/heroes are the worst offenders) that are completely fine in Campaign and Domination? And in terms of your proposed solution (more damage but cap uses) is adding in yet another thing into MP land battles that will annihilate elite infantry/cavalry really going to improve land battles?

The core issue with balancing MP land battles has always been they were designed for a SP experience where a player would fight dozens or hundreds of battles over a campaign and then replenish and change their army in-between battles. Campaign would suck if you could only buy one set of units and had no ability to purchase new units or replenish old ones. Which also happens to be exactly why reinforcements has been such a popular addition in Domination and why healing/summons are so meta in MP land battles.

saweendra#3399 · October 2022

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:

saweendra#3399 said:
Yeah nerf soul fire and buff it same time ..

It should do ton of damage but it should be limited ability.

So its not a actual mortis engine in time or lower the damage if it stays the same.

As for dom we can talk about that after we finally reach end of its evolution
This is in many ways a perfect example of what I mean.

Soulfire Bombardment opinions:

- Campaign: Fine
- Domination: Fine
- MP Land Battles: Overpowered

Nerfing Soulfire Bombardment will make it:

- Campaign: Underpowered
- Domination: Underpowered
- MP Land Battles: Fine

It could be rebalanced but how many hours are CA going to expend rebalancing every ability that is overpowered in MP land battles (there are many such abilities as SEMs in general are already overpowered in land battles and lords/heroes are the worst offenders) that are completely fine in Campaign and Domination? And in terms of your proposed solution (more damage but cap uses) is adding in yet another thing into MP land battles that will annihilate elite infantry/cavalry really going to improve land battles?

The core issue with balancing MP land battles has always been they were designed for a SP experience where a player would fight dozens or hundreds of battles over a campaign and then replenish and change their army in-between battles. Campaign would suck if you could only buy one set of units and had no ability to purchase new units or replenish old ones. Which also happens to be exactly why reinforcements has been such a popular addition in Domination and why healing/summons are so meta in MP land battles.

No the issue is camapagin is battles never really matter

It has been really the case since med 2

If you win a big battle you should be rewarded not be forced to fight 50 following battles.

And you can easily make it lot more power full in camapagin by simply using skills

So stop hiding behind camapagin when its convenient.

Dom has absolutely no realtion to camapagin

.

Just admit the reality of the situation dom is going to change and if this game gets support beyond next year it will become land battles with CPs

Or alternatively land battles will die.

But as of right now stop with nonsensical claims shall we.

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 · October 2022

saweendra#3399 said:

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:

saweendra#3399 said:
Yeah nerf soul fire and buff it same time ..

It should do ton of damage but it should be limited ability.

So its not a actual mortis engine in time or lower the damage if it stays the same.

As for dom we can talk about that after we finally reach end of its evolution
This is in many ways a perfect example of what I mean.

Soulfire Bombardment opinions:

- Campaign: Fine
- Domination: Fine
- MP Land Battles: Overpowered

Nerfing Soulfire Bombardment will make it:

- Campaign: Underpowered
- Domination: Underpowered
- MP Land Battles: Fine

It could be rebalanced but how many hours are CA going to expend rebalancing every ability that is overpowered in MP land battles (there are many such abilities as SEMs in general are already overpowered in land battles and lords/heroes are the worst offenders) that are completely fine in Campaign and Domination? And in terms of your proposed solution (more damage but cap uses) is adding in yet another thing into MP land battles that will annihilate elite infantry/cavalry really going to improve land battles?

The core issue with balancing MP land battles has always been they were designed for a SP experience where a player would fight dozens or hundreds of battles over a campaign and then replenish and change their army in-between battles. Campaign would suck if you could only buy one set of units and had no ability to purchase new units or replenish old ones. Which also happens to be exactly why reinforcements has been such a popular addition in Domination and why healing/summons are so meta in MP land battles.

Or alternatively land battles will die.

Land battles aren't going to die if that is your worry. They have a separate queue now and almost certainly will retain some amount of legacy players built up over 5+ years of activity.

But land battles won't ever be the primary competitive mode again is just the reality. CA clearly sees Dom as their MP baby, it works better in a competitive environment, and it seems to be having greater success in attracting new players. If you're deadset on playing Land battles and could never come to terms with capture points as the primary win condition or dynamic reinforcements then I can see how that would suck but it is what it is.

Honestly one of the reasons I have moved across 100% to Domination (which I do have my own issues with it may surprise you to hear although they have mostly been resolved through patches) is that I much prefer being part of a growing expanding community that gets lots of dev/youtube/event attention and is considered the "competitive standard" than one that is always sort of stuck in "hanging in there" mode. It is just much more fun.

In general, if you're fighting for control of the helm on a ship with a realistic chance of steering the boat where you want to go then it can be worth the effort. But if you're standing in front of a boulder careening down a hill yelling "Stop!" then you are just going to get flattened without achieving anything. IMHO Domination is a boulder down a hill, not a ship being steered. Play the mode you enjoy of course but going in with eyes wide open can save a lot of hassle and futile effort.

saweendra#3399 · October 2022

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:

saweendra#3399 said:

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 said:

saweendra#3399 said:
Yeah nerf soul fire and buff it same time ..

It should do ton of damage but it should be limited ability.

So its not a actual mortis engine in time or lower the damage if it stays the same.

As for dom we can talk about that after we finally reach end of its evolution
This is in many ways a perfect example of what I mean.

Soulfire Bombardment opinions:

- Campaign: Fine
- Domination: Fine
- MP Land Battles: Overpowered

Nerfing Soulfire Bombardment will make it:

- Campaign: Underpowered
- Domination: Underpowered
- MP Land Battles: Fine

It could be rebalanced but how many hours are CA going to expend rebalancing every ability that is overpowered in MP land battles (there are many such abilities as SEMs in general are already overpowered in land battles and lords/heroes are the worst offenders) that are completely fine in Campaign and Domination? And in terms of your proposed solution (more damage but cap uses) is adding in yet another thing into MP land battles that will annihilate elite infantry/cavalry really going to improve land battles?

The core issue with balancing MP land battles has always been they were designed for a SP experience where a player would fight dozens or hundreds of battles over a campaign and then replenish and change their army in-between battles. Campaign would suck if you could only buy one set of units and had no ability to purchase new units or replenish old ones. Which also happens to be exactly why reinforcements has been such a popular addition in Domination and why healing/summons are so meta in MP land battles.

Or alternatively land battles will die.

Land battles aren't going to die if that is your worry. They have a separate queue now and almost certainly will retain some amount of legacy players built up over 5+ years of activity.

But land battles won't ever be the primary competitive mode again is just the reality. CA clearly sees Dom as their MP baby, it works better in a competitive environment, and it seems to be having greater success in attracting new players. If you're deadset on playing Land battles and could never come to terms with capture points as the primary win condition or dynamic reinforcements then I can see how that would suck but it is what it is.

Honestly one of the reasons I have moved across 100% to Domination (which I do have my own issues with it may surprise you to hear although they have mostly been resolved through patches) is that I much prefer being part of a growing expanding community that gets lots of dev/youtube/event attention and is considered the "competitive standard" than one that is always sort of stuck in "hanging in there" mode. It is just much more fun.

In general, if you're fighting for control of the helm on a ship with a realistic chance of steering the boat where you want to go then it can be worth the effort. But if you're standing in front of a boulder careening down a hill yelling "Stop!" then you are just going to get flattened without achieving anything. IMHO Domination is a boulder down a hill, not a ship being steered. Play the mode you enjoy of course but going in with eyes wide open can save a lot of hassle and futile effort.

what if i do both and as far as i can tell every thing is going according to plan though painfully slowly

land battles will always be the primary as long as majority play it , if it isn't and the balancing happens depending on dom land battles will die they as it currently stands are not compatible

soo yes i will try to change dom in LBs with CP . its not bloduer its a **** pebble because as of right now it failed in its primary objective which is to replace Lbs it is a failure,

and unless it manages to beat Lbs in the separate que in terms of players and number of games its future is guaranteed to end up where i want it to go if it does manage to beat it than you and your friends win and i will take the L move the **** on.

but if i win i hope you do the same

Totentanz777#2915 · October 2022

Stop derailing every thread by turning it into Dom vs Land Battles. That discussion has happened across many threads at this point and if you wanna discuss it in another 10000 messages just start your own thread.

I think OP's idea is great. There are so many people who care about this game and could lighten the load and help to detect bugs/weird interactions. I'm not sure how feasible it would be for CA to give early access to some people exclusively but if they could pull it off then hell yea.

Welcome

Quick Links

Categories

Balancing and Feedback, the need to communicate with the playerbase

Comments