Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
@saweendra#3399 Just so you are aware I don't see this as "you and your friends vs me and my friends" or any of that at all. I hope you'll stick around to play/discuss regardless of what mode you play, I have nothing against you personally.
@Totentanz777#2915 OP directly addressed maintaining balanced between Domination and Land Battles in his post so it is on topic. Might want to give it a second read if you missed it.
@saweendra#3399 Just so you are aware I don't see this as "you and your friends vs me and my friends" or any of that at all. I hope you'll stick around to play/discuss regardless of what mode you play, I have nothing against you personally.
@Totentanz777#2915 OP directly addressed maintaining balanced between Domination and Land Battles in his post so it is on topic. Might want to give it a second read if you missed it.
that's a fair point. The OP made the argument that balancing for the two modes is very different, and that's just plain wrong. They're extremely highly correlated, in terms of the very few changes that would actually hurt one mode to help the other. Bad balance and game-breaking bugs are a huge problem and largely the same problems for both game modes.
you can lord it over land battles that they have more problems associated with healing, but there's no reason to be territorial when there are tons of fixes that won't hurt domination at all.
Balancing should be done for Land Battles primarily, not because of preference or popularity but for the simple fact that Domination as a mode is much less vulnerable to imbalances.
You can simply spam most efficient unit or counter all the time. If a unit is still OP even with that fact, that is probably also OP in land batles.
In regards to suggestion in the OP, my "problem" is that it presupposes that CA is willing to spend more effort on balancing the game, but they don't know what to do.
AFAIK, there used to be a number of players who provided input on balancing, maybe there still is, I have no idea. Didn't really solve the issues.
Most importantly, I've read so many balancing discussions involving very high level players, and my takeaway was that they are often of conflicting opinions.
I remember a talk with one of the most skilled WH2 players, in the few months after WH2 was out, who was adamant High Elfs auto lose vs Dwarfs.
Balancing should be done for Land Battles primarily, not because of preference or popularity but for the simple fact that Domination as a mode is much less vulnerable to imbalances.
You can simply spam most efficient unit or counter all the time. If a unit is still OP even with that fact, that is probably also OP in land batles.
In regards to suggestion in the OP, my "problem" is that it presupposes that CA is willing to spend more effort on balancing the game, but they don't know what to do.
AFAIK, there used to be a number of players who provided input on balancing, maybe there still is, I have no idea. Didn't really solve the issues.
Most importantly, I've read so many balancing discussions involving very high level players, and my takeaway was that they are often of conflicting opinions.
I remember a talk with one of the most skilled WH2 players, in the few months after WH2 was out, who was adamant High Elfs auto lose vs Dwarfs.
I think there is more of a consensus for what units need help or are too strong. As for what a faction needs as a whole that’s where opinions can diverge more. And i have also noticed that factions are in similar tiers in both domination and landbattles so there is a lot of overlap. Ogre Kingdoms, High Elves, Greenskins, Beastmen towarda the bottom. Slaanesh, Vampire Counts, Warriors of Chaos, Dark Elves towards the top. The units CA overbuffed in landbattles that we think maybe for domination are also overbuffed in domination e.g. crypt horrors and bleakswords. If we out aside capture weight, I can’t think of a unit that is balanced in one mode but not in the other. Typically it’s the same for both modes.
Seventeen personal/derogatory/inappropriate or otherwise comments removed. I suggest, very strongly suggest a couple of folks drop the "attitude" toward other member's opinions and focus on this thread's topic for discussion.
Alfredino's request is desperately needed. So many inconsitent and nonsensical balance changes. Whoever is coming up with these balance changes has no idea what they're doing. Yes wrong units have been buffed or nerfed in the past but since the changes now are much more drastic the patches are making balance a complete mess. Please start listening or at elast considering feedback from players who play MP.
Alfredino is right! Special people, who are deeply involved in competitive community and have incredible passion for the TWW. they know all small differences in stats and all problems (minor and major), since they're face with them every day. Actually, a group of devoted players can make testing process cheaper for CA, because after their help, it will not need to redo the patch, unlike ordinary random testers who do not have daily practice of multiplayer. There is no threats for other singleplayer community, since mp-balance can be done separately from the general. Also the Domination balance could be done separately from the land battles. TW community should not argue which part of the game is more important and whose balance is the only and mandatory for everyone.
Nah, if he wants to contribute he can post his suggestion here for all to see and discuss. Why keep it a secret unless he plans for done serious one sided changes
I will note that mapmakers have been stepping up to the plate and producing new maps for domination mode. Which was very welcome and one of the issues with domination (Lack of map variety may have resulted in faction stagnation)
It also honestly seems like a good idea to balance units and roster costs based on game mode -and- mulitiplayer mode. Having units share all features internally between campaign and mulitplayer just makes it more difficult to balance.
I'd rather units were balanced individually for campaign, multiplayer and specific multiplayer modes with gold costs and features relative to those modes.
The usual Multiplayer enthusaists response to this is 'Campaign isn't about balance, just ignore campaign balance'.
This has a dose of pragmatism to it. Mulitiplayer is far more sensitive to unit and magic balancing and change than campaign is.
But it's also less than 10% of the playerbase at best, and maybe just having our own little sandbox corner with tweaked unit balance is the way to go if the resources are there to make it happen. Having to share unit balance between campaign and Multiplayer and between Domination and Landbattle seems like it's going to be an exercise in difficulty where one is going to have to take a priority for the optimal experience at the exclusion of other game modes.
A great example was a player in a domination stream complained about how overpowered Volkmar the Grim was in Landbattle, which flummoxed Turin, because it was barely used in domination if at all. Volkmar likely should be balanced different based on game-mode if this assertion was true, with different gold costs in domination vs landbattle to reflect his difference in pwer.
That, or maybe it's fine if certain factions and units perform differently in each mode, but I've already seen the grumbling that has resulted from this. (Sigvald. It's usually sigvald )
To compare it to another game with PvP balance struggles, World of Warcraft only managed to reach a reasonable semblance of PvP balance beyond the abysmal once they completely decoupled PvP from PvM content, changing not just stats but entire functionalities behind features. And it took them like 4 expansions and 10 years or somethinig to actually do it.
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
Yes, I agree. Forums are good to communicate we don't need secret agreements.
Nah, if he wants to contribute he can post his suggestion here for all to see and discuss. Why keep it a secret unless he plans for done serious one sided changes
This is just overly cynical and borderline paranoia. Prominent people in the MP community want this game to be balanced and often ask for nerfs for their own factions because being OP is not fun. They want the game to be good and that means as balanced as possible so more people will play and enjoy MP. It's not like when CA balances it's objective now. Just look how they overbuff certain factions. They have no clue what there doing let a lone the ability to be objective. I trust experienced people in the MP community to do a good job way more. Ofcourse it won't be perfect but it would be hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Well, it would certainly open a possibility of people, especially campaign players, being angry at a "shadowy MP cabal that is ruining the game for the 5% of players who play MP".
It's a double edge sword.
Ultimately, I do not think there is need to request special lines of communication to CA balance team. Since it would be an advisory role, they can do the work and send their ideas to CA or post them here.
Nah, if he wants to contribute he can post his suggestion here for all to see and discuss. Why keep it a secret unless he plans for done serious one sided changes
This is just overly cynical and borderline paranoia. Prominent people in the MP community want this game to be balanced and often ask for nerfs for their own factions because being OP is not fun. They want the game to be good and that means as balanced as possible so more people will play and enjoy MP. It's not like when CA balances it's objective now. Just look how they overbuff certain factions. They have no clue what there doing let a lone the ability to be objective. I trust experienced people in the MP community to do a good job way more. Ofcourse it won't be perfect but it would be hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Again, just nonsense.
He got any suggestions, post it here.
Dont even know what his skill levels are, for all we know may well be the guy that says helf r weak and need buffs lol and voast r some super faction which by the looks of it, pretty much still hovering around the #1 worst faction in game, with a few other contenders happy to snatch that slot lol
Ancient sal, gorger, jeez, skink chief just to name a few being completely destroyed and victimised simply due to a few incessant whining from certain toxic base. Why would we even want that to happen again
For years we know blood knights r weak, thats why they got hunger added.
For years we know how stupid underpriced dragon prince are. lo and behold, what do they do with the most compared opponent chaos knights? -$100 on them to bring them in line.
Now watch them balance that useless bret with trash cavs, especially those useless grails
Remember those QQing about orks? completely disappeared, know why? never a strong faction to begin with. Maybe thats why they keep buffing giants trying to help them lol, was always the center piece of ork army on any tabletop game vs orkish players
Well, it would certainly open a possibility of people, especially campaign players, being angry at a "shadowy MP cabal that is ruining the game for the 5% of players who play MP".
It's a double edge sword.
Ultimately, I do not think there is need to request special lines of communication to CA balance team. Since it would be an advisory role, they can do the work and send their ideas to CA or post them here.
Ancient sal, gorger, jeez, skink chief just to name a few being completely destroyed and victimised simply due to a few incessant whining from certain toxic base. Why would we even want that to happen again
MP players rightfully pointed out they were overforming. It's CA's fault for overnerfing. No one requested the specific nerfs we got.
MP players rightfully pointed out they were overforming. It's CA's fault for overnerfing. No one requested the specific nerfs we got.
Lol none of them are. Otherwise ull never see them reverted. Ancient sal is still getting buffed over and over and over again in the past 4 years lol. Still useless, touted as a "op game breaking" unit with 0 pick rate lol
MP players rightfully pointed out they were overforming. It's CA's fault for overnerfing. No one requested the specific nerfs we got.
Lol none of them are. Otherwise ull never see them reverted. Ancient sal is still getting buffed over and over and over again in the past 4 years lol. Still useless, touted as a "op game breaking" unit with 0 pick rate lol
Ok how is your reading comprehension this bad. I said WERE overperforming not ARE overperforming. Obviously I don't think they're overporming now if I said they were overnerfed.
If you think none of them were overperforming you're way out of touch to even have this conversation. There were videos of gorgers with no infantry support beating units that are supposed to hard counter them and were much higher in cost like skullcrushers.
Well, it would certainly open a possibility of people, especially campaign players, being angry at a "shadowy MP cabal that is ruining the game for the 5% of players who play MP".
It's a double edge sword.
Ultimately, I do not think there is need to request special lines of communication to CA balance team. Since it would be an advisory role, they can do the work and send their ideas to CA or post them here.
This already exists .
and thats the issue i have, there is no transparency in the damn process which is why it shouldn't be even more layers of it .
I will say that having just a limited portion of the player base able to submit balance suggests with a direct line to the devs does run into some potential issues. For one, many good players can disagree about how best to balance the game and sometimes they are just flatly wrong.
For a game three example upon release when Nurgle was perceived as extremely weak some high level players genuinely suggested given plaguebearers regeneration at no cost (I remember reading this on the public facing balance suggestion section of totaltavern.com though that section hasn't been around for quite some time). Given everyone here has seen how the festering stooges perform I suspect we'd all agree that regeneration would have been a huge misstep. Additionally I recall watching multiple very good players express genuine surprise that plaguebearers would defeat forsaken in 1v1 combat, in spite of their very strong combat profile.
Mind you not every player had such an extreme take, with multiple folks arguing that a price cut and speed boost would be sufficient to make Nurgle less punishing of mistakes. When CA cut plaguebearer price by 50 and increased their speed by 5 they became a staple of the meta and Nurgle quickly became viewed as one of the top tier factions in dom (this is before IE which has obviously shifted things). Sometimes even very knowledgeable players get things wrong and quite often an intuitive understanding of what's good or bad isn't the best way to develop a healthy solution to the problem. Good players recognized that plaguebearers weren't viable at their original statline but the suggestion some came up with would have been toxic. That's not a problem with any particular people by the way, everyone is off on some of their suggestions some of the time. Having a space to discuss that is how the quality of a proposed solution can be assessed.
I do think that a better format for submitting and discussing suggestions to CA is a good idea. CA seems to think so too given the IE suggestion portion of the forum, which has been moderately successful in bringing general ideas to CA's attention but isn't great for small granular suggestions which is often what a balance discussion needs. I'd be more comfortable with the suggested format if there was a clear mechanism for public comments or suggestions to be added to the discussion and if at least some portion of the internal debate was observable to outside players. The current suggestion has the feel of a black box in some ways where at best outside players can submit a suggestion but are unable to be involved in any potential debate. The forum isn't perfect (and the regular user-base is somewhat limited) but it does allow anyone who is interested to put forth ideas for discussion and criticism without preference for group membership.
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.
If you think none of them were overperforming you're way out of touch to even have this conversation. There were videos of gorgers with no infantry support beating units that are supposed to hard counter them and were much higher in cost like skullcrushers.
Were never a good target to begin with, why would u send an ap on a 15 armor unit. Also self narrated rubbish about hard counter. Hard counter would be something like ror wild riders blocking the ap
Not to mention the fact literally all mentioned have their nerf reverted in a big way
If you think none of them were overperforming you're way out of touch to even have this conversation. There were videos of gorgers with no infantry support beating units that are supposed to hard counter them and were much higher in cost like skullcrushers.
Were never a good target to begin with, why would u send an ap on a 15 armor unit. Also self narrated rubbish about hard counter. Hard counter would be something like ror wild riders blocking the ap
Not to mention the fact literally all mentioned have their nerf reverted in a big way
The biggest nerf (and the one most of the forum seemed to agree was needed for Gorgers) was the loss of 1/4th of the entities. That nerf stuck even after the additional AP nerf was reverted. Gorgers are an anti-infantry unit the fact that they were beating large units that were way more expensive in a straight fight was a serious issue.
Very much agree with TS. There are people who spend hundreds of hours in this game each month and these are the people who know the game inside out. And while they might be bias (as any human can be) in the end they are the ones that can provide the most in-depth look to the game and adress the key issues especially on such delicate topic as multiplayer balance. You can even see it as additional volunteer testing department. What wrong could happen from a bit more human effort put into the game?
Very much agree with TS. There are people who spend hundreds of hours in this game each month and these are the people who know the game inside out. And while they might be bias (as any human can be) in the end they are the ones that can provide the most in-depth look to the game and adress the key issues especially on such delicate topic as multiplayer balance. You can even see it as additional volunteer testing department. What wrong could happen from a bit more human effort put into the game?
Sure, then why not pick the entire group here and send representatives with unanimous votes here that actually spent u know, YEARS testing and putting hours and days since warhammer 1 rather than some random that just comes in and say, yep give me the key to the vip room
Its as if we dont have over at least 4-5k games here lol. One of them even hit like what 7-8k games and thats like 3 years ago
Most here can still easily have time for 20-30 games per week, clocking in at least 1000 annually
I am not sure how this turned into a Dom vs Land Battle thread. It’s rather obnoxious it seems now that every Land Battle video I watch or thread I read there is some Priest of Domination trying to spread the gospel of their superior game mode and shove it down everyone’s throat. If it is infinitely better than Land Battles, people will leave Land Battles for it and you needn’t worry. I personally prefer Land Battles because I feel that it is one of the things that makes Total War unique as a game. I sincerely wish that they would have just given Land Battles a single capture point that activates part way through the match to prevent draw kiting, forest and white line camping and I hope that one day they do this.
That out of the way based on the last patch that was put out either CA doesn’t care too much about multiplayer, they didn’t test things or whoever is doing their play testing for multiplayer balance gave them bad information. A lot of the unit pricing changes were a head scratcher and did nothing to change the powerful units in either game mode. hellstriders are still fantastic in both game modes just one example. I think having experienced multiplayer testers can give CA valuable information to deliver better unit balance and unit caps. At the end of the day the campaign is far more popular and that will be their main focus unless multiplayer starts to take off. So if that is the case why not outsource to experienced players that love the game and have played it for many years?
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
I know this happens, but it was never the norm in Warhammer II and I haven’t been cheeses yet since IE dropped and I returned, but having one capture point that activates 8-10 minutes into the the battle solves all the issues other than unit caps and that’s something CA could easily manage especially with great multiplayer feedback.
Comments
@Totentanz777#2915 OP directly addressed maintaining balanced between Domination and Land Battles in his post so it is on topic. Might want to give it a second read if you missed it.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agreeyou can lord it over land battles that they have more problems associated with healing, but there's no reason to be territorial when there are tons of fixes that won't hurt domination at all.
- Report
1 · 2Disagree 1AgreeYou can simply spam most efficient unit or counter all the time. If a unit is still OP even with that fact, that is probably also OP in land batles.
In regards to suggestion in the OP, my "problem" is that it presupposes that CA is willing to spend more effort on balancing the game, but they don't know what to do.
AFAIK, there used to be a number of players who provided input on balancing, maybe there still is, I have no idea. Didn't really solve the issues.
Most importantly, I've read so many balancing discussions involving very high level players, and my takeaway was that they are often of conflicting opinions.
I remember a talk with one of the most skilled WH2 players, in the few months after WH2 was out, who was adamant High Elfs auto lose vs Dwarfs.
- Report
2 · 3Disagree 2Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeTook 2 dlcs to change that completely.
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeYouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/snipingachilles
- Report
3 · Disagree 3Agree- Report
4 · Disagree 4Agree- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2AgreeActually, a group of devoted players can make testing process cheaper for CA, because after their help, it will not need to redo the patch, unlike ordinary random testers who do not have daily practice of multiplayer.
There is no threats for other singleplayer community, since mp-balance can be done separately from the general. Also the Domination balance could be done separately from the land battles. TW community should not argue which part of the game is more important and whose balance is the only and mandatory for everyone.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeTop #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
1 · 2Disagree 1AgreeIt also honestly seems like a good idea to balance units and roster costs based on game mode -and- mulitiplayer mode. Having units share all features internally between campaign and mulitplayer just makes it more difficult to balance.
I'd rather units were balanced individually for campaign, multiplayer and specific multiplayer modes with gold costs and features relative to those modes.
The usual Multiplayer enthusaists response to this is 'Campaign isn't about balance, just ignore campaign balance'.
This has a dose of pragmatism to it. Mulitiplayer is far more sensitive to unit and magic balancing and change than campaign is.
But it's also less than 10% of the playerbase at best, and maybe just having our own little sandbox corner with tweaked unit balance is the way to go if the resources are there to make it happen. Having to share unit balance between campaign and Multiplayer and between Domination and Landbattle seems like it's going to be an exercise in difficulty where one is going to have to take a priority for the optimal experience at the exclusion of other game modes.
A great example was a player in a domination stream complained about how overpowered Volkmar the Grim was in Landbattle, which flummoxed Turin, because it was barely used in domination if at all. Volkmar likely should be balanced different based on game-mode if this assertion was true, with different gold costs in domination vs landbattle to reflect his difference in pwer.
That, or maybe it's fine if certain factions and units perform differently in each mode, but I've already seen the grumbling that has resulted from this. (Sigvald. It's usually sigvald
To compare it to another game with PvP balance struggles, World of Warcraft only managed to reach a reasonable semblance of PvP balance beyond the abysmal once they completely decoupled PvP from PvM content, changing not just stats but entire functionalities behind features. And it took them like 4 expansions and 10 years or somethinig to actually do it.
- Report
0 · 4Disagree Agree- Report
1 · 2Disagree 1Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnd they post what they want for public eyes.
Its not paranoia its just how it should be done
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe reason at least for me with ca balance changes are that we have no real idea why they do certain things.
If we get another layer of elites between rest of us and the balance how is this gonna fix the frustration any one has.
Do we blame Ca do we blame this elite committee.
What ?
Plus unlike discord or reddit any reply on this fourm is much easier to track down qith searching
So yeah i am not in favor of this idea..
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIt's a double edge sword.
Ultimately, I do not think there is need to request special lines of communication to CA balance team. Since it would be an advisory role, they can do the work and send their ideas to CA or post them here.
- Report
4 · Disagree 4AgreeHe got any suggestions, post it here.
Dont even know what his skill levels are, for all we know may well be the guy that says helf r weak and need buffs lol and voast r some super faction which by the looks of it, pretty much still hovering around the #1 worst faction in game, with a few other contenders happy to snatch that slot lol
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeFor years we know blood knights r weak, thats why they got hunger added.
For years we know how stupid underpriced dragon prince are. lo and behold, what do they do with the most compared opponent chaos knights? -$100 on them to bring them in line.
Now watch them balance that useless bret with trash cavs, especially those useless grails
Remember those QQing about orks? completely disappeared, know why? never a strong faction to begin with. Maybe thats why they keep buffing giants trying to help them lol, was always the center piece of ork army on any tabletop game vs orkish players
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeTop #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeIf you think none of them were overperforming you're way out of touch to even have this conversation. There were videos of gorgers with no infantry support beating units that are supposed to hard counter them and were much higher in cost like skullcrushers.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agreethis is should and must be a transparent process
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeFor a game three example upon release when Nurgle was perceived as extremely weak some high level players genuinely suggested given plaguebearers regeneration at no cost (I remember reading this on the public facing balance suggestion section of totaltavern.com though that section hasn't been around for quite some time). Given everyone here has seen how the festering stooges perform I suspect we'd all agree that regeneration would have been a huge misstep. Additionally I recall watching multiple very good players express genuine surprise that plaguebearers would defeat forsaken in 1v1 combat, in spite of their very strong combat profile.
Mind you not every player had such an extreme take, with multiple folks arguing that a price cut and speed boost would be sufficient to make Nurgle less punishing of mistakes. When CA cut plaguebearer price by 50 and increased their speed by 5 they became a staple of the meta and Nurgle quickly became viewed as one of the top tier factions in dom (this is before IE which has obviously shifted things). Sometimes even very knowledgeable players get things wrong and quite often an intuitive understanding of what's good or bad isn't the best way to develop a healthy solution to the problem. Good players recognized that plaguebearers weren't viable at their original statline but the suggestion some came up with would have been toxic. That's not a problem with any particular people by the way, everyone is off on some of their suggestions some of the time. Having a space to discuss that is how the quality of a proposed solution can be assessed.
I do think that a better format for submitting and discussing suggestions to CA is a good idea. CA seems to think so too given the IE suggestion portion of the forum, which has been moderately successful in bringing general ideas to CA's attention but isn't great for small granular suggestions which is often what a balance discussion needs. I'd be more comfortable with the suggested format if there was a clear mechanism for public comments or suggestions to be added to the discussion and if at least some portion of the internal debate was observable to outside players. The current suggestion has the feel of a black box in some ways where at best outside players can submit a suggestion but are unable to be involved in any potential debate. The forum isn't perfect (and the regular user-base is somewhat limited) but it does allow anyone who is interested to put forth ideas for discussion and criticism without preference for group membership.
- Report
3 · Disagree 3Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeNot to mention the fact literally all mentioned have their nerf reverted in a big way
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree Agree- Report
2 · Disagree 2Agree- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeIts as if we dont have over at least 4-5k games here lol. One of them even hit like what 7-8k games and thats like 3 years ago
Most here can still easily have time for 20-30 games per week, clocking in at least 1000 annually
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThat out of the way based on the last patch that was put out either CA doesn’t care too much about multiplayer, they didn’t test things or whoever is doing their play testing for multiplayer balance gave them bad information. A lot of the unit pricing changes were a head scratcher and did nothing to change the powerful units in either game mode. hellstriders are still fantastic in both game modes just one example. I think having experienced multiplayer testers can give CA valuable information to deliver better unit balance and unit caps. At the end of the day the campaign is far more popular and that will be their main focus unless multiplayer starts to take off. So if that is the case why not outsource to experienced players that love the game and have played it for many years?
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree