Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

WARHAMMER WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 2022

VM_MorS#3918VM_MorS#3918 Junior MemberRussiaRegistered Users Posts: 37
edited October 2022 in Multiplayer
«1

Comments

  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358
    Domination 😭

    Best of luck for the event though
  • The_real_FAUST#6885The_real_FAUST#6885 Registered Users Posts: 2,113
    edited October 2022
    'warhammer domination world championship 2022'
    Post edited by The_real_FAUST#6885 on
  • Leping#7906Leping#7906 Registered Users Posts: 621
    What a bait, domination....
  • #28785#28785 Registered Users Posts: 19
    boredom mode On …. 😓
  • #501075#501075 Registered Users Posts: 143
    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.
  • Leping#7906Leping#7906 Registered Users Posts: 621
    Everyone loves dom until they play it or even watch it

    Not very constructive but we akk way past that here =)
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,599
    Leping said:

    Everyone loves dom until they play it or even watch it

    Not very constructive but we akk way past that here =)

    for some reason watching it is worse than actually even playing it.

    i gave it a solid try even tried to watch indies ones that have much more effort than turins put to them. but no i can't do it

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358
    edited October 2022
    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,883

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
  • NakedCherub#3435NakedCherub#3435 Registered Users Posts: 79
    edited October 2022
    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    A mode that devaluing mechanics of the game, CA should just rebuild their game, time to kill, unit speed on area, spell damage and effects, add a side activities like resources and tech tree. In another case this mode just incredibly custom and primitive variation of DoW2, and I can't even imagine what would make me play this instead DoW.

    Multiplayer, which I would never play, even being impressed by the franchise and the abundance of game content, because it doesn't work there, lol.
  • Pocman#6295Pocman#6295 Registered Users Posts: 5,761

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
    I don't think the general idea of what Lotus was saying is false.

    Is like playing some old fighting game like street fighter. If you were a novice, you might lose against someone spamming a single move. And think the game is terrible. But if you are a more advanced player, you learn how to counter those cheesy moves and enjoy the game.

    Obviously, sometimes the cheesy moves are objectively OP and need to be nerfed.
  • sandercohensandercohen Registered Users Posts: 525
    Not discounting kiting as a legitimate strategy or anything, but we have to consider that the multiplayer community is substantially bigger than the people who actually play multiplayer, let alone partake in tournaments. From a spectator perspective kiting is boring to look at. In LBs if you did not cater your build specifically to countering kite builds you would either lose, or in the case of QB where no engagement rules could be enforced it ended up in a draw, unless the kiter was kind enough to realize he could not possibly win and either left or just charged the remainder of his forces in as a last-ditch attempt to win.

    Then there is of course the player aspect of it as well. I know having played kite builds how micro-intensive it can be, but on the receiving end I know how utterly tedious it can be to play against it as well. On the receiving end you have to ensure not to over extend units so they can't be isolated and destroyed, on the kiter everything depended on your opponent making that very mistake by stressing their micro. If both were privy to the strategies it led to protracted battles wherein nothing really spectacular happened.

    Though I initially favored LBs, having played this trilogy competitively since WH1, but since then I have come to terms with dom even though there are certainly improvements to be made to its mechanics. But I feel like domination has taken away the potential tedium and cheese that land battles had, which included boxing up and (draw) kiting. Kiting still persists but not to the same extent that I described above. The same thing can be said for boxing since you have three points to fight over, instead of just needing one ranged unit like a bolt thrower to obey the attacking rule.

    That's not to mention that rules for tournaments were not streamlined and you sometimes had to force through 30+ pages of rules and unit picks before you could even participate without making mistakes. Then there also was substantial bias involved, for example I was a VCount main for a long time and some rule-makers outright hated VC. They came up with general rules that didn't explicitly target Vampire Counts but did do so implicitly like not being able to take more than two units of cavalry costing more than 1500-1600 gold. No other non-RoR cavalry unit costed more than 1600 gold outside of Blood Knights. Meaning that Vcounts were restricted to bringing only two units of blood knights, while Empire, Bretonnia, High Elves could bring three units of Demis, Grail Knights and Dragon Princes respectively.

    Dom has the advantage of requiring far less community input, as well as refereeing on the part of casters. Banning factions or units because they are OP is a lot easier to manage than enforcing engagement rules. Not to mention that it discourages kite-heavy builds and the oh-so enjoyable boxing strategies that required so much skill to pull off.
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,883

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
    I don't think the general idea of what Lotus was saying is false.

    Is like playing some old fighting game like street fighter. If you were a novice, you might lose against someone spamming a single move. And think the game is terrible. But if you are a more advanced player, you learn how to counter those cheesy moves and enjoy the game.

    Obviously, sometimes the cheesy moves are objectively OP and need to be nerfed.
    I don't think the Street Fighter Analogy is false. There's absolutely truth to players needing to learn how to counter things as they grow, and what may seem OP at one level doesn't feel OP later on once you've gotten better at dealing with it.

    ^But in those analogies, you beat it typically with something else different and asymmetrical to it.

    But what has frequently happened in this trilogy is NOT asymmetrical. It's just encouraging people to do the exact same thing back to them. OP vs UP isn't even really the point at that juncture. It's the variety of playstyles available and encouraged.

    In almost every Race, the exact same 1-2 playstyles is the best. Every Race's 'best units' are simply the units that further that style of play. As just one singular example: Chameleon Skinks, a kiting unit, being one of the Lizardmen's best units for example, despite the fact that the Lizardmen appeal and playstyle isn't really supposed to be a kitey/missile/skirmish faction. They're SUPPOSED to be a monstrous melee bruiser. But if you play them that way, instead of playing them all goony and kitey, you're doing it wrong, or at least heavily suboptimal.

    And if you don't like that, then you're 'bad at the game now'. And you should just learn to 'appreciate kiting more' apparently. And it didn't have to be that way either! The Lizardmen have had prowess in non skirmish and goon arenas. And those are the arenas that have been capped and banned the most. While the caps on skirmish units remain to this day, by far the most generous caps and the least altered over time.

    It's just one example. But the dominance of goon squads, kiting, missile cav, and skirmish play across EVERY Race is pretty prevalent.

    Overall, the MP community has worked pretty hard to take a game with 20+ Races and countless asymmetrical strategies.....and managed to make the entire competitive meta more static than the 3 Races of Starcraft. Builds are samey and predictable with tons of identity and flavor lost.

    And it's NOT that other flavors aren't possible. They are. They're just derided, capped, and banned. Sometimes fairly! Sometimes unfairly. It depends on the exact build and tournament rule. I understand that many of these things were objectively needed. But certainly not all of them.

    ^And yes, it is a little pretentious when the meta isn't innocuously operating like your Street Fighter analogy.....and then the people who favor this 'uni-kite, mass cap' meta then want to tell other players they ought to have a 'greater appreciation of other strategies'??? It's pretty hypocritical tbh.

    A more apt example would be, let's say hypothetically in Street Fighter, 'single move spam' became objectively, the best performing style of play. So no matter what fighter you picked, you just spammed the same move for all fighters. Some people would be better at spamming that move than others, and thus your ability to spam that move became the metric of competitive play.

    And if you found a counter to that move, tournaments would ban bringing the counter. And if you pointed out how monotonous and stale that scene had become.....you'd be told you needed to have a 'greater appreciation for alternative strategies'....despite the fact that the single move spammers who benefit from that system would have zero appreciation for alternative strategies themselves, and instead frequently attack or deride those strategies that weren't the 'single move'.

    Basically, I'm all for encouraging newer players to grow and expand and learn how to improve their play. But I ALSO think it's totally valid to point out that the meta (especially in Game 1 and 2) was frequently pretty cheesy and stale, and tournament rules excessively killed a lot of asymmetrical gameplay options.

    Both of those two things can be true at the same time.
  • razenb#1517razenb#1517 Registered Users Posts: 630
    Who cares about an unbalanced game with an unbalanced game mode with terrible mechanics?
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,883

    Who cares about an unbalanced game with an unbalanced game mode with terrible mechanics?

    People who would like to see the game become more balanced and popular?...

    And to be fair, it has!

    Player counts are higher now than they used to be in Game 1/2.

    While balance flaws obviously remain, it's miles ahead of the days of 'Lightning Bug' builds or being able to permanently summon 20%+ more gold units to the field.

    So it's made progress.

    More progress remains to be made.

    And lots of people care and provide input in the spirit of trying to make it better. If they didn't, it'd be an obsolete dead game in the vein of Three Kingdoms.
  • razenb#1517razenb#1517 Registered Users Posts: 630

    Who cares about an unbalanced game with an unbalanced game mode with terrible mechanics?

    People who would like to see the game become more balanced and popular?...

    And to be fair, it has!

    Player counts are higher now than they used to be in Game 1/2.

    While balance flaws obviously remain, it's miles ahead of the days of 'Lightning Bug' builds or being able to permanently summon 20%+ more gold units to the field.

    So it's made progress.

    More progress remains to be made.

    And lots of people care and provide input in the spirit of trying to make it better. If they didn't, it'd be an obsolete dead game in the vein of Three Kingdoms.
    I mean if someone wants to see a real competitve strategy game with high skill plays cause not everyone cries that playing smart = cheese those guys can watch sc2 or wc3.
    Twwh is out for ages and they start to balance now? Wtf. Also this comunity is the worst when it comes to "rules" to make it "fair"
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,883
    edited October 2022

    Who cares about an unbalanced game with an unbalanced game mode with terrible mechanics?

    People who would like to see the game become more balanced and popular?...

    And to be fair, it has!

    Player counts are higher now than they used to be in Game 1/2.

    While balance flaws obviously remain, it's miles ahead of the days of 'Lightning Bug' builds or being able to permanently summon 20%+ more gold units to the field.

    So it's made progress.

    More progress remains to be made.

    And lots of people care and provide input in the spirit of trying to make it better. If they didn't, it'd be an obsolete dead game in the vein of Three Kingdoms.
    I mean if someone wants to see a real competitve strategy game with high skill plays cause not everyone cries that playing smart = cheese those guys can watch sc2 or wc3.
    Twwh is out for ages and they start to balance now? Wtf. Also this comunity is the worst when it comes to "rules" to make it "fair"
    They've been 'starting to balance it' the entire time. I've not always agreed with the direction, but they didn't just start now. It's been an ongoing process.

    And the two aren't mutually exclusive....watching an esport and caring about MP in this game.

    You can watch established RTS play and want another title to grow at the same time. I play SC2, and have for years. I've actually played Starcraft longer in terms of years played than I've played Total War cumulatively as a franchise actually....although I've probably played Total War more as a franchise in terms of just 'hours played', but I digress. I just watched the GSL/ASL finals for SC1/SC2 this week. I ALSO plan to participate in this World Championship for Game 3 and want the Game 3 MP scene to grow.

    *^People can do both.
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,883

    Who cares about an unbalanced game with an unbalanced game mode with terrible mechanics?

    People who would like to see the game become more balanced and popular?...

    And to be fair, it has!

    Player counts are higher now than they used to be in Game 1/2.

    While balance flaws obviously remain, it's miles ahead of the days of 'Lightning Bug' builds or being able to permanently summon 20%+ more gold units to the field.

    So it's made progress.

    More progress remains to be made.

    And lots of people care and provide input in the spirit of trying to make it better. If they didn't, it'd be an obsolete dead game in the vein of Three Kingdoms.
    I mean if someone wants to see a real competitve strategy game with high skill plays cause not everyone cries that playing smart = cheese those guys can watch sc2 or wc3.
    Twwh is out for ages and they start to balance now? Wtf. Also this comunity is the worst when it comes to "rules" to make it "fair"
    As someone who has done both, I do at least partially agree to a small degree on your excessive 'house rules' point.

    A: It's unfortunate the default balance isn't up to snuff to the point where house rules are required. Most well balanced MP games do not require such things to extreme degrees.

    B: Even though SOME house rules are required due to genuine imbalances....this community does get way too enthusiastic and bias in terms of implementing way more house rules than are actually necessary. It's gotten quite messy at times with different organizers operating different rulesets and some rulesets being put in place literally because the organizers simply just 'didn't like X build' rather than anything to do with balance.

    So yeah, I do hope one day that the game reaches a state where it neither needs house rules nor has organizers who are keen to implement them.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
    Well as noted in the first sentence i did state "from my experience" and thus it pretty much implies its what i think, but ok lets assume im making a general statement on behalf of everyone, so let me reply to what you wrote.

    I think you make some valid points there but there are big issues with what you wrote for me, firstly you assume that veteran and experienced player = good player, this is just outrite not the case for me, i seen players who played for 1 month be way better players than those who played for 5 years. So experience does not = Skill to me, and as stated i wrote "higher skilled player" and NOT experience player.

    Now for the rest of the statement, i do agree with you, but for me that straight away makes them NOT a top player, i mean have you seen me, or elfredino, or xhiphos or void, or showtime anyone one really at the top cry about opponents strategy being unfair?

    I mean i seen those players including myself be annoyed at certain strategies but never QQ that its unfair UNLESS there has been major balance issues and those cries go at CA balance and not so much the opposition player who is using said units/strategy unless its bug abusing.

    I have to say i have never seen a pro make a post stating "Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build" or anythin along those lines, i have made posts myself stating, i dont like playing vs line rush and i find it boring BUT i never have made a statement that speaks on behalf of the whole community in regards to what i find unfun.

    If people started stating that they dislike kite or find it unfun than more power to them, go for it 100% its you're rite, but when the person starts saying it as they represent the whole community it just **** me, especially with 0 data to back it up.

    You know when i did extreme kite in everchosen event, i would have 3 people compliment me in DM's for each person that raged, likewise in youtube comments etc, i have stats to back this up, coz im sick of people who try to push their own agenda with no way to back it up.

    I think my statement is not false at all.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
    I don't think the general idea of what Lotus was saying is false.

    Is like playing some old fighting game like street fighter. If you were a novice, you might lose against someone spamming a single move. And think the game is terrible. But if you are a more advanced player, you learn how to counter those cheesy moves and enjoy the game.

    Obviously, sometimes the cheesy moves are objectively OP and need to be nerfed.
    I don't think the Street Fighter Analogy is false. There's absolutely truth to players needing to learn how to counter things as they grow, and what may seem OP at one level doesn't feel OP later on once you've gotten better at dealing with it.

    ^But in those analogies, you beat it typically with something else different and asymmetrical to it.

    But what has frequently happened in this trilogy is NOT asymmetrical. It's just encouraging people to do the exact same thing back to them. OP vs UP isn't even really the point at that juncture. It's the variety of playstyles available and encouraged.

    In almost every Race, the exact same 1-2 playstyles is the best. Every Race's 'best units' are simply the units that further that style of play. As just one singular example: Chameleon Skinks, a kiting unit, being one of the Lizardmen's best units for example, despite the fact that the Lizardmen appeal and playstyle isn't really supposed to be a kitey/missile/skirmish faction. They're SUPPOSED to be a monstrous melee bruiser. But if you play them that way, instead of playing them all goony and kitey, you're doing it wrong, or at least heavily suboptimal.

    And if you don't like that, then you're 'bad at the game now'. And you should just learn to 'appreciate kiting more' apparently. And it didn't have to be that way either! The Lizardmen have had prowess in non skirmish and goon arenas. And those are the arenas that have been capped and banned the most. While the caps on skirmish units remain to this day, by far the most generous caps and the least altered over time.

    It's just one example. But the dominance of goon squads, kiting, missile cav, and skirmish play across EVERY Race is pretty prevalent.

    Overall, the MP community has worked pretty hard to take a game with 20+ Races and countless asymmetrical strategies.....and managed to make the entire competitive meta more static than the 3 Races of Starcraft. Builds are samey and predictable with tons of identity and flavor lost.

    And it's NOT that other flavors aren't possible. They are. They're just derided, capped, and banned. Sometimes fairly! Sometimes unfairly. It depends on the exact build and tournament rule. I understand that many of these things were objectively needed. But certainly not all of them.

    ^And yes, it is a little pretentious when the meta isn't innocuously operating like your Street Fighter analogy.....and then the people who favor this 'uni-kite, mass cap' meta then want to tell other players they ought to have a 'greater appreciation of other strategies'??? It's pretty hypocritical tbh.

    A more apt example would be, let's say hypothetically in Street Fighter, 'single move spam' became objectively, the best performing style of play. So no matter what fighter you picked, you just spammed the same move for all fighters. Some people would be better at spamming that move than others, and thus your ability to spam that move became the metric of competitive play.

    And if you found a counter to that move, tournaments would ban bringing the counter. And if you pointed out how monotonous and stale that scene had become.....you'd be told you needed to have a 'greater appreciation for alternative strategies'....despite the fact that the single move spammers who benefit from that system would have zero appreciation for alternative strategies themselves, and instead frequently attack or deride those strategies that weren't the 'single move'.

    Basically, I'm all for encouraging newer players to grow and expand and learn how to improve their play. But I ALSO think it's totally valid to point out that the meta (especially in Game 1 and 2) was frequently pretty cheesy and stale, and tournament rules excessively killed a lot of asymmetrical gameplay options.

    Both of those two things can be true at the same time.
    Again issue is not what he finds fun or not, its him making a generalized statement, if he wrote “land battles are fun until i play vs kite” i would not have made the response i did.

    Disliking on a playstyle is fine, making it sound like it ruins land battle for most people is just nothing but a rant with no evidence to back that up in anyway.
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,883

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
    I don't think the general idea of what Lotus was saying is false.

    Is like playing some old fighting game like street fighter. If you were a novice, you might lose against someone spamming a single move. And think the game is terrible. But if you are a more advanced player, you learn how to counter those cheesy moves and enjoy the game.

    Obviously, sometimes the cheesy moves are objectively OP and need to be nerfed.
    I don't think the Street Fighter Analogy is false. There's absolutely truth to players needing to learn how to counter things as they grow, and what may seem OP at one level doesn't feel OP later on once you've gotten better at dealing with it.

    ^But in those analogies, you beat it typically with something else different and asymmetrical to it.

    But what has frequently happened in this trilogy is NOT asymmetrical. It's just encouraging people to do the exact same thing back to them. OP vs UP isn't even really the point at that juncture. It's the variety of playstyles available and encouraged.

    In almost every Race, the exact same 1-2 playstyles is the best. Every Race's 'best units' are simply the units that further that style of play. As just one singular example: Chameleon Skinks, a kiting unit, being one of the Lizardmen's best units for example, despite the fact that the Lizardmen appeal and playstyle isn't really supposed to be a kitey/missile/skirmish faction. They're SUPPOSED to be a monstrous melee bruiser. But if you play them that way, instead of playing them all goony and kitey, you're doing it wrong, or at least heavily suboptimal.

    And if you don't like that, then you're 'bad at the game now'. And you should just learn to 'appreciate kiting more' apparently. And it didn't have to be that way either! The Lizardmen have had prowess in non skirmish and goon arenas. And those are the arenas that have been capped and banned the most. While the caps on skirmish units remain to this day, by far the most generous caps and the least altered over time.

    It's just one example. But the dominance of goon squads, kiting, missile cav, and skirmish play across EVERY Race is pretty prevalent.

    Overall, the MP community has worked pretty hard to take a game with 20+ Races and countless asymmetrical strategies.....and managed to make the entire competitive meta more static than the 3 Races of Starcraft. Builds are samey and predictable with tons of identity and flavor lost.

    And it's NOT that other flavors aren't possible. They are. They're just derided, capped, and banned. Sometimes fairly! Sometimes unfairly. It depends on the exact build and tournament rule. I understand that many of these things were objectively needed. But certainly not all of them.

    ^And yes, it is a little pretentious when the meta isn't innocuously operating like your Street Fighter analogy.....and then the people who favor this 'uni-kite, mass cap' meta then want to tell other players they ought to have a 'greater appreciation of other strategies'??? It's pretty hypocritical tbh.

    A more apt example would be, let's say hypothetically in Street Fighter, 'single move spam' became objectively, the best performing style of play. So no matter what fighter you picked, you just spammed the same move for all fighters. Some people would be better at spamming that move than others, and thus your ability to spam that move became the metric of competitive play.

    And if you found a counter to that move, tournaments would ban bringing the counter. And if you pointed out how monotonous and stale that scene had become.....you'd be told you needed to have a 'greater appreciation for alternative strategies'....despite the fact that the single move spammers who benefit from that system would have zero appreciation for alternative strategies themselves, and instead frequently attack or deride those strategies that weren't the 'single move'.

    Basically, I'm all for encouraging newer players to grow and expand and learn how to improve their play. But I ALSO think it's totally valid to point out that the meta (especially in Game 1 and 2) was frequently pretty cheesy and stale, and tournament rules excessively killed a lot of asymmetrical gameplay options.

    Both of those two things can be true at the same time.
    Again issue is not what he finds fun or not, its him making a generalized statement, if he wrote “land battles are fun until i play vs kite” i would not have made the response i did.

    Disliking on a playstyle is fine, making it sound like it ruins land battle for most people is just nothing but a rant with no evidence to back that up in anyway.
    I will agree with that it's unfair of him to make such a sweeping generalization without the possibility of exceptions.

    I DO think that at least in certain sections of the land battle community by the end of Game 2, they had indeed ran off a lot of people until a large part of who was left was basically just themselves. And then they kind of had an excessive positive reinforcement feedback loop in an echo chamber regarding how awesome the state of affairs were, without realizing exactly how small the scene actually was.

    In between DLC launches, less than 2,000 players were regularly laddering (playing more than 1-2 matches a week) if you looked at the number of games played between ladder resets many pages in.

    So I think he has a point tbh. And in my personal experience, I can at least partially relate. I enjoyed laddering more earlier on in Game 2 when I felt there was more variety. It's NOT that kite builds by themselves ruined anything for me.

    But they did become increasingly frequent. And an increasingly high percentage of my games. Win or lose, my heart would sink a little when I just knew I was going to get yet another guy bringing 5 missile cav just from how they were behaving on the Race Selection roulette. I never quit playing entirely. But I did start playing a lot less. And a lot of the reason for that was the over saturation of kites and goons on the ladder. So I don't think his claim is wildly off base or anything.

    But I do agree with you that people shouldn't overstate their case without understanding circumstances and context. These situations are oftentimes complex and nuanced and it's not helpful for anyone to try to boil them down to JUST one thing, as complex problems oftentimes require nuanced solutions. Over simplifying the problem can lead to an inaccurate solution.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
    I don't think the general idea of what Lotus was saying is false.

    Is like playing some old fighting game like street fighter. If you were a novice, you might lose against someone spamming a single move. And think the game is terrible. But if you are a more advanced player, you learn how to counter those cheesy moves and enjoy the game.

    Obviously, sometimes the cheesy moves are objectively OP and need to be nerfed.
    I don't think the Street Fighter Analogy is false. There's absolutely truth to players needing to learn how to counter things as they grow, and what may seem OP at one level doesn't feel OP later on once you've gotten better at dealing with it.

    ^But in those analogies, you beat it typically with something else different and asymmetrical to it.

    But what has frequently happened in this trilogy is NOT asymmetrical. It's just encouraging people to do the exact same thing back to them. OP vs UP isn't even really the point at that juncture. It's the variety of playstyles available and encouraged.

    In almost every Race, the exact same 1-2 playstyles is the best. Every Race's 'best units' are simply the units that further that style of play. As just one singular example: Chameleon Skinks, a kiting unit, being one of the Lizardmen's best units for example, despite the fact that the Lizardmen appeal and playstyle isn't really supposed to be a kitey/missile/skirmish faction. They're SUPPOSED to be a monstrous melee bruiser. But if you play them that way, instead of playing them all goony and kitey, you're doing it wrong, or at least heavily suboptimal.

    And if you don't like that, then you're 'bad at the game now'. And you should just learn to 'appreciate kiting more' apparently. And it didn't have to be that way either! The Lizardmen have had prowess in non skirmish and goon arenas. And those are the arenas that have been capped and banned the most. While the caps on skirmish units remain to this day, by far the most generous caps and the least altered over time.

    It's just one example. But the dominance of goon squads, kiting, missile cav, and skirmish play across EVERY Race is pretty prevalent.

    Overall, the MP community has worked pretty hard to take a game with 20+ Races and countless asymmetrical strategies.....and managed to make the entire competitive meta more static than the 3 Races of Starcraft. Builds are samey and predictable with tons of identity and flavor lost.

    And it's NOT that other flavors aren't possible. They are. They're just derided, capped, and banned. Sometimes fairly! Sometimes unfairly. It depends on the exact build and tournament rule. I understand that many of these things were objectively needed. But certainly not all of them.

    ^And yes, it is a little pretentious when the meta isn't innocuously operating like your Street Fighter analogy.....and then the people who favor this 'uni-kite, mass cap' meta then want to tell other players they ought to have a 'greater appreciation of other strategies'??? It's pretty hypocritical tbh.

    A more apt example would be, let's say hypothetically in Street Fighter, 'single move spam' became objectively, the best performing style of play. So no matter what fighter you picked, you just spammed the same move for all fighters. Some people would be better at spamming that move than others, and thus your ability to spam that move became the metric of competitive play.

    And if you found a counter to that move, tournaments would ban bringing the counter. And if you pointed out how monotonous and stale that scene had become.....you'd be told you needed to have a 'greater appreciation for alternative strategies'....despite the fact that the single move spammers who benefit from that system would have zero appreciation for alternative strategies themselves, and instead frequently attack or deride those strategies that weren't the 'single move'.

    Basically, I'm all for encouraging newer players to grow and expand and learn how to improve their play. But I ALSO think it's totally valid to point out that the meta (especially in Game 1 and 2) was frequently pretty cheesy and stale, and tournament rules excessively killed a lot of asymmetrical gameplay options.

    Both of those two things can be true at the same time.
    Again issue is not what he finds fun or not, its him making a generalized statement, if he wrote “land battles are fun until i play vs kite” i would not have made the response i did.

    Disliking on a playstyle is fine, making it sound like it ruins land battle for most people is just nothing but a rant with no evidence to back that up in anyway.
    I will agree with that it's unfair of him to make such a sweeping generalization without the possibility of exceptions.

    I DO think that at least in certain sections of the land battle community by the end of Game 2, they had indeed ran off a lot of people until a large part of who was left was basically just themselves. And then they kind of had an excessive positive reinforcement feedback loop in an echo chamber regarding how awesome the state of affairs were, without realizing exactly how small the scene actually was.

    In between DLC launches, less than 2,000 players were regularly laddering (playing more than 1-2 matches a week) if you looked at the number of games played between ladder resets many pages in.

    So I think he has a point tbh. And in my personal experience, I can at least partially relate. I enjoyed laddering more earlier on in Game 2 when I felt there was more variety. It's NOT that kite builds by themselves ruined anything for me.

    But they did become increasingly frequent. And an increasingly high percentage of my games. Win or lose, my heart would sink a little when I just knew I was going to get yet another guy bringing 5 missile cav just from how they were behaving on the Race Selection roulette. I never quit playing entirely. But I did start playing a lot less. And a lot of the reason for that was the over saturation of kites and goons on the ladder. So I don't think his claim is wildly off base or anything.

    But I do agree with you that people shouldn't overstate their case without understanding circumstances and context. These situations are oftentimes complex and nuanced and it's not helpful for anyone to try to boil them down to JUST one thing, as complex problems oftentimes require nuanced solutions. Over simplifying the problem can lead to an inaccurate solution.
    Actually if you look at the data for how many people played by win rates on ladder after few pages in, you will be very misinformed unless you look into it in detail, i have done so in the past as a response to someone and it turns out that there are 3 sections on the win rate data that are full of people playing,

    What i mean is that first 20 pages were full of people with 20+ wins, than about 30 empty pages, than again 10 pages full of people with 20+ wins, than once again full off nothing and full of active, you can confirm this for yourself by launching game 2 and checking, i dont recall my findinngs but im 100% sure was over 5000 i think even over 10000, im not sure what the case is for game 3 as i have not looked into it thus far.

    I can try find the topic with my data as jt was a response to orklads who was telling straight up lies to talk down land battles and multiplayer in game 2.
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,883
    edited October 2022

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
    I don't think the general idea of what Lotus was saying is false.

    Is like playing some old fighting game like street fighter. If you were a novice, you might lose against someone spamming a single move. And think the game is terrible. But if you are a more advanced player, you learn how to counter those cheesy moves and enjoy the game.

    Obviously, sometimes the cheesy moves are objectively OP and need to be nerfed.
    I don't think the Street Fighter Analogy is false. There's absolutely truth to players needing to learn how to counter things as they grow, and what may seem OP at one level doesn't feel OP later on once you've gotten better at dealing with it.

    ^But in those analogies, you beat it typically with something else different and asymmetrical to it.

    But what has frequently happened in this trilogy is NOT asymmetrical. It's just encouraging people to do the exact same thing back to them. OP vs UP isn't even really the point at that juncture. It's the variety of playstyles available and encouraged.

    In almost every Race, the exact same 1-2 playstyles is the best. Every Race's 'best units' are simply the units that further that style of play. As just one singular example: Chameleon Skinks, a kiting unit, being one of the Lizardmen's best units for example, despite the fact that the Lizardmen appeal and playstyle isn't really supposed to be a kitey/missile/skirmish faction. They're SUPPOSED to be a monstrous melee bruiser. But if you play them that way, instead of playing them all goony and kitey, you're doing it wrong, or at least heavily suboptimal.

    And if you don't like that, then you're 'bad at the game now'. And you should just learn to 'appreciate kiting more' apparently. And it didn't have to be that way either! The Lizardmen have had prowess in non skirmish and goon arenas. And those are the arenas that have been capped and banned the most. While the caps on skirmish units remain to this day, by far the most generous caps and the least altered over time.

    It's just one example. But the dominance of goon squads, kiting, missile cav, and skirmish play across EVERY Race is pretty prevalent.

    Overall, the MP community has worked pretty hard to take a game with 20+ Races and countless asymmetrical strategies.....and managed to make the entire competitive meta more static than the 3 Races of Starcraft. Builds are samey and predictable with tons of identity and flavor lost.

    And it's NOT that other flavors aren't possible. They are. They're just derided, capped, and banned. Sometimes fairly! Sometimes unfairly. It depends on the exact build and tournament rule. I understand that many of these things were objectively needed. But certainly not all of them.

    ^And yes, it is a little pretentious when the meta isn't innocuously operating like your Street Fighter analogy.....and then the people who favor this 'uni-kite, mass cap' meta then want to tell other players they ought to have a 'greater appreciation of other strategies'??? It's pretty hypocritical tbh.

    A more apt example would be, let's say hypothetically in Street Fighter, 'single move spam' became objectively, the best performing style of play. So no matter what fighter you picked, you just spammed the same move for all fighters. Some people would be better at spamming that move than others, and thus your ability to spam that move became the metric of competitive play.

    And if you found a counter to that move, tournaments would ban bringing the counter. And if you pointed out how monotonous and stale that scene had become.....you'd be told you needed to have a 'greater appreciation for alternative strategies'....despite the fact that the single move spammers who benefit from that system would have zero appreciation for alternative strategies themselves, and instead frequently attack or deride those strategies that weren't the 'single move'.

    Basically, I'm all for encouraging newer players to grow and expand and learn how to improve their play. But I ALSO think it's totally valid to point out that the meta (especially in Game 1 and 2) was frequently pretty cheesy and stale, and tournament rules excessively killed a lot of asymmetrical gameplay options.

    Both of those two things can be true at the same time.
    Again issue is not what he finds fun or not, its him making a generalized statement, if he wrote “land battles are fun until i play vs kite” i would not have made the response i did.

    Disliking on a playstyle is fine, making it sound like it ruins land battle for most people is just nothing but a rant with no evidence to back that up in anyway.
    I will agree with that it's unfair of him to make such a sweeping generalization without the possibility of exceptions.

    I DO think that at least in certain sections of the land battle community by the end of Game 2, they had indeed ran off a lot of people until a large part of who was left was basically just themselves. And then they kind of had an excessive positive reinforcement feedback loop in an echo chamber regarding how awesome the state of affairs were, without realizing exactly how small the scene actually was.

    In between DLC launches, less than 2,000 players were regularly laddering (playing more than 1-2 matches a week) if you looked at the number of games played between ladder resets many pages in.

    So I think he has a point tbh. And in my personal experience, I can at least partially relate. I enjoyed laddering more earlier on in Game 2 when I felt there was more variety. It's NOT that kite builds by themselves ruined anything for me.

    But they did become increasingly frequent. And an increasingly high percentage of my games. Win or lose, my heart would sink a little when I just knew I was going to get yet another guy bringing 5 missile cav just from how they were behaving on the Race Selection roulette. I never quit playing entirely. But I did start playing a lot less. And a lot of the reason for that was the over saturation of kites and goons on the ladder. So I don't think his claim is wildly off base or anything.

    But I do agree with you that people shouldn't overstate their case without understanding circumstances and context. These situations are oftentimes complex and nuanced and it's not helpful for anyone to try to boil them down to JUST one thing, as complex problems oftentimes require nuanced solutions. Over simplifying the problem can lead to an inaccurate solution.
    Actually if you look at the data for how many people played by win rates on ladder after few pages in, you will be very misinformed unless you look into it in detail, i have done so in the past as a response to someone and it turns out that there are 3 sections on the win rate data that are full of people playing,

    What i mean is that first 20 pages were full of people with 20+ wins, than about 30 empty pages, than again 10 pages full of people with 20+ wins, than once again full off nothing and full of active, you can confirm this for yourself by launching game 2 and checking, i dont recall my findinngs but im 100% sure was over 5000 i think even over 10000, im not sure what the case is for game 3 as i have not looked into it thus far.

    I can try find the topic with my data as jt was a response to orklads who was telling straight up lies to talk down land battles and multiplayer in game 2.
    The Game 2 numbers also would need to be divided by the number of weeks since a ladder reset though.

    Like more people will have 20+ wins on more pages now since there hasn't been a reset in Game 2 for ages.

    I remember similarly scrolling and deep and doing the divisions, although it's admittedly been awhile. I don't remember how many weeks after the ladder reset it was when I measured it. But when I did it, I was trying to ascertain how many people were regularly laddering in a week to count them as 'active'.


    Like 20 wins doesn't matter anymore if it's been 70+ weeks since a Ladder Reset if that makes sense. So you'd only want to make note of accounts with 70-100 wins in that specific example. Like the longer since the reset, the more wins are needed for it to be statistically relevant as an active player.

    It's also important to keep in mind that less than 2k seems fair (if not exceedingly generous) given the low concurrent player count for the TOTAL game.

    Like, at points, the game would average less than 10k concurrent players. Sometimes 6k to 8k. It is mostly a singleplayer game. The overwhelming vast majority of those 6k-10k concurrent players aren't laddering.

    So a small active ladder pool makes sense in context.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358
    edited October 2022

    #501075 said:

    Everyone loves land battles until they play against a full kite build.

    Enjoyment and appreciation for different viable strategies tends to increase with higher skill level of a player from my experience, meaning the better one becomes the less they think the game/strategies are "unfair" and rather see all that its possible in it and think of ways to improve as a player overall, there is a big trend i noticed from players that hate kite and also struggle to pass first round in many events, ofcourse my statement is not limited to just kite, just overall people QQing about strategies that are intended game design.


    Unless you confuse kite with draw kite like most people who have no idea of the difference do.
    This is false, gatekeeping, and frankly, a little pretentious.

    Yes, there are players who get stuck in a mindset of 'blaming the game' rather than seeing where they can improve as players. It's a real thing that does happen.

    But it's not something that only happens to less experienced players. PLENTY of experienced veterans do the EXACT same thing. Actually, in many pro scenes in multiple games, it's literally the pros themselves who do this. And it's absolutely been a recurring theme/problem during the MP development of Game 1 and Game 2.

    It's part why the top pro players oftentimes make bad casters or bad balance designers. They view their own personal playstyle as the ONLY valid way to play. Anything is 'less skilled' and needs to banned, patched, or capped. And many (not all) get salty and selfish when put on balance committees or are casting games, or live streaming their practice sessions.

    I can't even recall the number of times I've seen a pro live stream, lose, and instead of learning from it, just dismiss it as: "my opponent was bad. I'm a martyr doing a more skilled playstyle. He couldn't pull off my style. So he resorted to a lesser strategy and won." Or some other variation of that rhetoric. It's pervasive at all levels of multiplayer gaming.

    You can find salty top tier players in any scene you want who share this mindset. And in the Game 1 and 2 scene this mindset of literally banning or soft capping out any builds that violated their view of the 'One True Meta' tangibly reared its head multiple times and is part of what made the scene small, static, and stagnant.

    So yeah, new players blame the game instead of learning alternative strategies. But veterans do the same thing; denigrating any alternative play besides their own personal style as 'lesser' and instead of learning new ways to play themselves, like to hide behind arbitrary rules, caps, and bans.

    *^No, not EVERY cap/ban is a self interested, close minded ban. Some are authentically put in place for balance. But not all. It's a mixed bag depending upon the exact situation or context. But it's specifically a mixed bag because new players don't have a monopoly on being close minded, elitist, and inflexible when trying to define the 'right' way to play the game or refusing to learn or appreciate alternative strategies.
    I don't think the general idea of what Lotus was saying is false.

    Is like playing some old fighting game like street fighter. If you were a novice, you might lose against someone spamming a single move. And think the game is terrible. But if you are a more advanced player, you learn how to counter those cheesy moves and enjoy the game.

    Obviously, sometimes the cheesy moves are objectively OP and need to be nerfed.
    I don't think the Street Fighter Analogy is false. There's absolutely truth to players needing to learn how to counter things as they grow, and what may seem OP at one level doesn't feel OP later on once you've gotten better at dealing with it.

    ^But in those analogies, you beat it typically with something else different and asymmetrical to it.

    But what has frequently happened in this trilogy is NOT asymmetrical. It's just encouraging people to do the exact same thing back to them. OP vs UP isn't even really the point at that juncture. It's the variety of playstyles available and encouraged.

    In almost every Race, the exact same 1-2 playstyles is the best. Every Race's 'best units' are simply the units that further that style of play. As just one singular example: Chameleon Skinks, a kiting unit, being one of the Lizardmen's best units for example, despite the fact that the Lizardmen appeal and playstyle isn't really supposed to be a kitey/missile/skirmish faction. They're SUPPOSED to be a monstrous melee bruiser. But if you play them that way, instead of playing them all goony and kitey, you're doing it wrong, or at least heavily suboptimal.

    And if you don't like that, then you're 'bad at the game now'. And you should just learn to 'appreciate kiting more' apparently. And it didn't have to be that way either! The Lizardmen have had prowess in non skirmish and goon arenas. And those are the arenas that have been capped and banned the most. While the caps on skirmish units remain to this day, by far the most generous caps and the least altered over time.

    It's just one example. But the dominance of goon squads, kiting, missile cav, and skirmish play across EVERY Race is pretty prevalent.

    Overall, the MP community has worked pretty hard to take a game with 20+ Races and countless asymmetrical strategies.....and managed to make the entire competitive meta more static than the 3 Races of Starcraft. Builds are samey and predictable with tons of identity and flavor lost.

    And it's NOT that other flavors aren't possible. They are. They're just derided, capped, and banned. Sometimes fairly! Sometimes unfairly. It depends on the exact build and tournament rule. I understand that many of these things were objectively needed. But certainly not all of them.

    ^And yes, it is a little pretentious when the meta isn't innocuously operating like your Street Fighter analogy.....and then the people who favor this 'uni-kite, mass cap' meta then want to tell other players they ought to have a 'greater appreciation of other strategies'??? It's pretty hypocritical tbh.

    A more apt example would be, let's say hypothetically in Street Fighter, 'single move spam' became objectively, the best performing style of play. So no matter what fighter you picked, you just spammed the same move for all fighters. Some people would be better at spamming that move than others, and thus your ability to spam that move became the metric of competitive play.

    And if you found a counter to that move, tournaments would ban bringing the counter. And if you pointed out how monotonous and stale that scene had become.....you'd be told you needed to have a 'greater appreciation for alternative strategies'....despite the fact that the single move spammers who benefit from that system would have zero appreciation for alternative strategies themselves, and instead frequently attack or deride those strategies that weren't the 'single move'.

    Basically, I'm all for encouraging newer players to grow and expand and learn how to improve their play. But I ALSO think it's totally valid to point out that the meta (especially in Game 1 and 2) was frequently pretty cheesy and stale, and tournament rules excessively killed a lot of asymmetrical gameplay options.

    Both of those two things can be true at the same time.
    Again issue is not what he finds fun or not, its him making a generalized statement, if he wrote “land battles are fun until i play vs kite” i would not have made the response i did.

    Disliking on a playstyle is fine, making it sound like it ruins land battle for most people is just nothing but a rant with no evidence to back that up in anyway.
    I will agree with that it's unfair of him to make such a sweeping generalization without the possibility of exceptions.

    I DO think that at least in certain sections of the land battle community by the end of Game 2, they had indeed ran off a lot of people until a large part of who was left was basically just themselves. And then they kind of had an excessive positive reinforcement feedback loop in an echo chamber regarding how awesome the state of affairs were, without realizing exactly how small the scene actually was.

    In between DLC launches, less than 2,000 players were regularly laddering (playing more than 1-2 matches a week) if you looked at the number of games played between ladder resets many pages in.

    So I think he has a point tbh. And in my personal experience, I can at least partially relate. I enjoyed laddering more earlier on in Game 2 when I felt there was more variety. It's NOT that kite builds by themselves ruined anything for me.

    But they did become increasingly frequent. And an increasingly high percentage of my games. Win or lose, my heart would sink a little when I just knew I was going to get yet another guy bringing 5 missile cav just from how they were behaving on the Race Selection roulette. I never quit playing entirely. But I did start playing a lot less. And a lot of the reason for that was the over saturation of kites and goons on the ladder. So I don't think his claim is wildly off base or anything.

    But I do agree with you that people shouldn't overstate their case without understanding circumstances and context. These situations are oftentimes complex and nuanced and it's not helpful for anyone to try to boil them down to JUST one thing, as complex problems oftentimes require nuanced solutions. Over simplifying the problem can lead to an inaccurate solution.
    Actually if you look at the data for how many people played by win rates on ladder after few pages in, you will be very misinformed unless you look into it in detail, i have done so in the past as a response to someone and it turns out that there are 3 sections on the win rate data that are full of people playing,

    What i mean is that first 20 pages were full of people with 20+ wins, than about 30 empty pages, than again 10 pages full of people with 20+ wins, than once again full off nothing and full of active, you can confirm this for yourself by launching game 2 and checking, i dont recall my findinngs but im 100% sure was over 5000 i think even over 10000, im not sure what the case is for game 3 as i have not looked into it thus far.

    I can try find the topic with my data as jt was a response to orklads who was telling straight up lies to talk down land battles and multiplayer in game 2.
    The Game 2 numbers also would need to be divided by the number of weeks since a ladder reset though.

    Like more people will have 20+ wins on more pages now since there hasn't been a reset in Game 2 for ages.

    I remember similarly scrolling and deep and doing the divisions, although it's admittedly been awhile. I don't remember how many weeks after the ladder reset it was when I measured it. But when I did it, I was trying to ascertain how many people were regularly laddering in a week to count them as 'active'.


    Like 20 wins doesn't matter anymore if it's been 70+ weeks since a Ladder Reset if that makes sense. So you'd only want to make note of accounts with 70-100 wins in that specific example. Like the longer since the reset, the more wins are needed for it to be statistically relevant as an active player.

    It's also important to keep in mind that less than 2k seems fair (if not exceedingly generous) given the low concurrent player count for the TOTAL game.

    Like, at points, the game would average less than 10k concurrent players. Sometimes 6k to 8k. It is mostly a singleplayer game. The overwhelming vast majority of those 6k-10k concurrent players aren't laddering.

    So a small active ladder pool makes sense in context.
    Well set me the criteria and i do the search if we agree but lets make a bet on it for a dlc so i dont just waste my time

    Do note i will use same criteria for war 3, so manipulating it likely means even better numbers for me in The direct comparison
  • Sindri_TWAC#7322Sindri_TWAC#7322 Registered Users Posts: 159
    As a person, who absolutely hates kite builds with all my heart - i found myself not enjoying and therefore not playing domination mode.

    I've already made a thread about it in the past, couple of patches away, but nothing has actually drasticaly changed since then.

    To summ it up - why did they go for this overcomplication of a simple concept instead of just adding victory point/s to a normal land battles.

    Domination was set to solve couple of issues, players had with Land Battles. Main issues were draw kiting, build roulette and corner camping. Ofcourse domination effectively solves the draw kiting issue, but the "build roulette" is still there. Dom also added more issues on top

    1)Build roulette. You still have 9000 Gold to build up your initial force and 9000 remain for reinforcements. Out of 9000 Gold you could still be potentially matched against an army, which you have no chance against. For comparison Land Battles has 3400 more gold value for your force, which is raughly a 1/3. The argument is though, that you have a chance to react with your reinforcing army, which is true to some degree, but still can't gaurantee you could adapt in any thinkable situation.

    For comparison with other games, that use Victory Points system like Dawn of War 2 or Company of Heroes 1/2 - every faction starts with 1 unit(+hero in DoW) and it is always the same unit - you SLOWLY gather resources and build up a force to counter the force of your enemy, adapt and maneuver. You have to scout, to see what your enemy is doing, plan, predict, maybe provoke your opponent to call in some units. There is a good reason, why these games don't start with amount of units that fills 50% of your unit cap - it would either lead to fixed builds in specific match ups or make the game completely random.

    To make things worse though, in Wh 3 you actualy have to pick your reinforcements pool, which IMO is an absolutely insane and unnecessery idea, not implemented in any of the said other games, domination wants to be like. In those games, your goal is to outtech your oponent in one way or another and destroy their economy. With higher tech, you get better more elite units. And you have access to ALL the tools, your faction has. Why on earth would you want to eliminatea build roulette by limiting the reinforcement units? It completely eliminates the purpose for me - you might aswell just made a LB mode with 18000 Gold and call it a day...

    And then there is this unit teleporting mechanic, which makes almost no sense at all. It gives miniscule of resources back, you have to waste the same amount of resources to resummon a unit and generally - it just ruins the feel of any substance to your or enemy units since they will just keep coming in a neverending stream like in some moba. For comparison, DoW 2 an CoH games had retreat mechanic, which a)made units atualy RUN back to base and b) you could reinforce them back to full strenght for much less money. This way perserving your units and retreating them in the face of destruction was absolutely necessery and is a major part of the fun. In Wh3....-just let them fight to death, i'll resummon them later maybe.

    TO SUMM IT UP: a) Do not limit the reinforcement pool at all, give players access to all the units in the roster. Hell why would you not want to? b) Remove that silly teleporting mechanic and make all units die permenanty, except your lords and heroes

    2) Draw kiting/kiting builds.

    I'll make it short - kiting builds are still there and can be viable. If anything it's a balance not a gameplay issue. Adding a single VP in a Land battle would have done the trick anyways.

    Guess majority would be happy with Land battles + VP on it - don't see any reason for the effort they seem to put in ovecomplicating the dom mode.
  • The_real_FAUST#6885The_real_FAUST#6885 Registered Users Posts: 2,113
    Well put Sindri, agree.

    The implementation of this additional mode has just been dreadful.

    And that's what it is and how it should be observed. An additional mode.
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,599
    Damn i might not be a fan of dom but hasn't this tournament fallen flat on its head or something


    I see very little coverage of it across the board compared to the last woc.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,781

    Damn i might not be a fan of dom but hasn't this tournament fallen flat on its head or something


    I see very little coverage of it across the board compared to the last woc.

    yeah its starting to look pretty sad



  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,599

    Damn i might not be a fan of dom but hasn't this tournament fallen flat on its head or something


    I see very little coverage of it across the board compared to the last woc.

    yeah its starting to look pretty sad

    excuse me 70 players? or 700 players didn't the last one had like 1000 players at the start.

    damn i mean just damn .



    on my personal thoughts

    i guess i was right dom was going to fail, but this bad for the entire games Mp future, CA and our lovely dom defenders has been doing balance changes primary based on Dom which is destroying Lbs while dom the mode never got the real changes it needs to become Land battles with capture points

    when will people learn there are better games for this type of game mode than TWs if you take away what makes TW what it is than its not gonna stick.

    at this point the game would done better if they never added dom to begin with.



    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • The_real_FAUST#6885The_real_FAUST#6885 Registered Users Posts: 2,113
    Calling it the Warhammer TW World Cup is looking a little more self-indulgent as well.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file