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

Outraged

1356

Comments

  • Sky_sweeperSky_sweeper Senior Member OklahomaRegistered Users Posts: 1,711
    Naysayer said:

    much less people will buy this product hence it needs to cost more to get back its invested man hours proportionate to base game

    and that in turn drives less people to buy it because it is too expensive - how does that make sense in the long-term?
    A brave man marches into danger and ignores his fear. A courageous man marches into danger while embracing his fear.

    OS: Windows 7 Premium 64 bit
    CPU: Intel i7 4970k 4.0 Ghz
    GPU: AMD r9 290x 4GB
    RAM: 16GB DDR3

    Veteran of the Total War franchise since Shogun: Total war. (I was 10)
  • dodge33cymrudodge33cymru Registered Users Posts: 2,101

    I have to agree with the comment by OP in that the unique units are what make the game interesting. To not include them is to take away from one of the major draws of Warhammer. No one gives a crap about Gors and Ungors, because they are standard infantry that do nothing unique. The monsters/machines are the draw to the world.

    Did you read the thread? There are plenty of people commenting here that they're not in it for the monsters but enjoy an infantry battle.


    I would rather they cut the mini-campaign and use those resources and funding to create the monster units.

    As they explained in the Q&A it's not an either/or sort of offer. Different resources are available for each.


    I see this whole issue as more than simply "They screwed up beastmen". For me it tells me that any race that is going to be DLC isn't going to be getting a full roster of their unique units. And that's what bothers me, is that the DLC races are being treated as second-rate.

    They're being treated the same as the launch races. Not perfect but the majority of iconic/historic units are there.

    I would be surprised if much is missing from the Wood Elves roster (maybe some mounts and I guess wardancers will be an animator's nightmare), but the difference is that GW started adding all sorts of random chaff units in 7th and 8th edition as part of their "everyone gets a monster" phase. If some of the less iconic newfangled monsters are casualties to ensure key troops are there for every race, I'm fine with that.
  • Sky_sweeperSky_sweeper Senior Member OklahomaRegistered Users Posts: 1,711
    edited July 2016

    I have to agree with the comment by OP in that the unique units are what make the game interesting. To not include them is to take away from one of the major draws of Warhammer. No one gives a crap about Gors and Ungors, because they are standard infantry that do nothing unique. The monsters/machines are the draw to the world.

    Did you read the thread? There are plenty of people commenting here that they're not in it for the monsters but enjoy an infantry battle.


    I would rather they cut the mini-campaign and use those resources and funding to create the monster units.

    As they explained in the Q&A it's not an either/or sort of offer. Different resources are available for each.


    I see this whole issue as more than simply "They screwed up beastmen". For me it tells me that any race that is going to be DLC isn't going to be getting a full roster of their unique units. And that's what bothers me, is that the DLC races are being treated as second-rate.

    They're being treated the same as the launch races. Not perfect but the majority of iconic/historic units are there.

    I would be surprised if much is missing from the Wood Elves roster (maybe some mounts and I guess wardancers will be an animator's nightmare), but the difference is that GW started adding all sorts of random chaff units in 7th and 8th edition as part of their "everyone gets a monster" phase. If some of the less iconic newfangled monsters are casualties to ensure key troops are there for every race, I'm fine with that.
    I feel the people who are only in it for an infantry battle are missing the fun of having it in a fantasy setting... any two guys can hit eachother with clubs. But not everyone can pick the other up and bite off it's head. Besides, aren't sync kills something everyone misses apparently?

    resources - fire the people who can't animate and hire people who can. May seem cold, but business is cold. Besides, if you're buying total war for the story you're buying it for the wrong reasons. Unless they go all out with cenimatics and character interaction, these mini-campaigns are very weak as they have been in the past.

    The launch races still have a large variety to them, even if their rosters aren't "complete" they are a hell of a lot closer than the Beastmen are. Most - if not all - of the unique units for the launch races are in the game. They are what give them their flavor on the battlefield. Vampires would be nothing if not for their monsters. Greenskins would be nothing but dumb naked orcs if not for their giants, spiders, and chariots - not to mention they almost had no siege equipment besides the doom diver before launch.

    Beastmen are missing all of their flavor. They have really no chaos look to them - they are just a bunch of satyrs and minotaurs with different names. The Gorgon and Jabber are the most chaotic monsters they have and are the ones that really instill the fear that these units are supposed to give off.

    I'm sorry that I'm of a different mind than you, but I would rather they do the faction right if they are going to charge nearly a 1/3rd of the full game's price for 1 race when the full game came out with 4 races that still have more full rosters than Beastmen do.
    A brave man marches into danger and ignores his fear. A courageous man marches into danger while embracing his fear.

    OS: Windows 7 Premium 64 bit
    CPU: Intel i7 4970k 4.0 Ghz
    GPU: AMD r9 290x 4GB
    RAM: 16GB DDR3

    Veteran of the Total War franchise since Shogun: Total war. (I was 10)
  • SuneaterSuneater Registered Users Posts: 241

    bronhoms said:



    pathetic. We will pay for for the unique units. We want to play this game BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE UNITS, not because of rank and file infantry.


    STOP SAYING "WE". Please people, it's getting ridiculous how many folk are claiming to speak for everyone else. And by the way, no, I completely disagree with you; I'd much rather have three varieties of the core species with different weapon models and purposes, that actually fit what the race is about, than a few obscure specialist units that are supposed to be very rare and take away from the flavour of the race (IMO). I've certainly never seen a jabberslythe in 10 years of playing TT (because it only showed up in the last edition). The chariot I would like, the rest I can take or leave, and I'd rather not be paying £5 more just for a big, flying frog that I have to play against every time I play MP, thank you.


    Also, you must be a fan of the Daily Mail with topic titles like that...

    Pretty much agreed.
    I feel that for (based in Warhammer history and lore) multiplayer should not have Steam Tank it is so rare. More "normal" units yes. Something we get when we take factions nearby (or even something like Flagellant:

    or Warrior Priests of Sigmar:

    )
    I do not expect them to change too much, let's say Knightly Order they look bit different and yes they will have bit different stats but Reiksguard Knights vs Knights of the Fiery Heart (they most likely get bonus against goblinoids) and so on.

    But what I mean is: you take Averland you can recruit: The Order of the Black Bear (and maybe get some bonus for knighly order horses after all local horses are considered the finest of The Empire). Simple.
    * Windows 10 64bit Enteprise
    * Motherboard: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VI HERO
    * Power: EVGA SuperNOVA 850 G3
    * CPU: AMD 3900X 3.8-4.6GHz (4.23GHz, CPU V-Core 1.25V Zen States)
    * Cooler: Thermalright Macho Rev. B + Indium heatspring
    * GPU: Sapphire RX Vega 64 Pulse (1630/945 => 1662/1150)
    * Net: 100/10Mb
    * HD's:Kingston 512Gb SSDNow kc400, Western Digital Scorpio Blue 1Tb 2.5", Western Digital 2TB Caviar Green 64MB SATA3, Western Digital 2Tb Blue WD20EZRZ 2000 GB
    * RAM: 2X Gskill TridentZ CL16 32GB 3200MHz DDR4 1.35V F4-3200C16D-16GTZ (3200 16-16-16-38-1T)
    * Soundcard: Asus XONAR D1 Low Profile PCI 7.1
    * VCR+system: Denon AVR-1603 + 5.1 Eltax MovieMaxx & Eltax Cinema subwoofer (front Dali 310)
    * Screen: Acer XF270HUA 2560 x 1440
    * Case: Fractal Design Define R4
    * Mouse: Logitech G500s
    * Keyboard: Corsair K70 MK.2 RGB RapidFire
  • PerfectVictoryPerfectVictory Registered Users Posts: 121
    Sorry, but I am just not buying this argument that paying 17 bucks for The Beastmen Campaign Pack is overpriced due to the fact that the game released with four races for forty bucks. Ok...so by that logic, its 10 bucks a race. So the extra campaign that Beastmen have that NO OTHER race has as of yet is then worth 7 bucks.

    It doesn't add up. If anything, I am slightly irritated that awesome factions, such as The Vampire Counts, will not have a Mini Campaign map all their own.

    People havnt even played the Beastmen campaign so, quite frankly, it is an ignorant assertion to claim the Campaign Pack isn't worth 17 bucks. That may end up being true but there is no way of knowing that right now.
  • Erman2626Erman2626 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    Just reposting the same thing again

    Game costs 180 TRY in Turkey,that makes 45 TRY for each faction,excluding Warriors of Chaos.
    DLC costs 28 TRY,which has both a campaing pack and a race pack.A pretty **** good deal for me.



    ^the point is prices differ for zones.Stop using that argument.
  • wraithzswraithzs Member Registered Users Posts: 65
    People tend to forget when their raging in the forum that they are the minority
  • RadiousRadious Senior Member Czech RepublicRegistered Users Posts: 1,281
    Adding 3-5 more unique missing units to Beastmen and instead of super tiny campaign with 1 playable faction only adding more provinces and areas to GC would result in total happiness of majority - no rage about poor roster, no rage about useless campaign and no rage about expensive dlc. Proper rosters and additions to GC (instead of making tiny new ones) is what most players want adn always asked for.
  • wraithzswraithzs Member Registered Users Posts: 65
    Who is most I don't see the majority agreeing with you, they are enjoying the game and never go to the forum
  • PerfectVictoryPerfectVictory Registered Users Posts: 121
    Radious said:

    Adding 3-5 more unique missing units to Beastmen and instead of super tiny campaign with 1 playable faction only adding more provinces and areas to GC would result in total happiness of majority - no rage about poor roster, no rage about useless campaign and no rage about expensive dlc. Proper rosters and additions to GC (instead of making tiny new ones) is what most players want adn always asked for.

    Well, we already know that more of the GC map will be opened up and unlocked in the future. Your issue seems to be that you want it now.....two months after release. Sorry, but that seems extremely out of touch. I would have thought someone with the name of "Radious" would have a better understanding of production.

    Personally, I am looking forward to the mini campaign. I want to see why they decided to do this. You have non idea how it will play, you are just ignorantly making assertions and depending upon your name to make them stick.
  • LoubidoLoubido Registered Users Posts: 64
    edited July 2016
    Several commentators on the thread have bought up why they believe that this is not a moral issue, I politely disagree and here is why:

    By setting the price at £14 CA have set a benchmark that they, and other companies can and will follow if their product proves successful. The DLC for Black Ops 2 is priced at ~£12 and another thread I glanced over compared the the price of this DLC to that of the latest Witcher 3 DLC. it is important to compare this DLC, in terms of cost versus content, to that of other popular games to see if it is reasonably priced. And so at ~£14 it seems to me that the Beastmen pack has been overvalued somewhat especially considering the skepticism pointed out earlier in this thread about incomplete rosters and re skinned game mechanics.

    By reasonably priced I also mean competitively priced, I absolutely understand that CA or GW don't want to shoot themselves in the foot by undervaluing their DLC and missing out on hard earned profit. However, it would equally be 'sinful' to overvalue their product and thus deprive a certain demographic, who would otherwise buy the product, but perhaps can't afford to pay over the odds for a non-essential part of the game.

    Ultimately what this comes down to is ever increasing prices for video games, which I totally get, it's a key part of business in the world we live in. But if you think back to 15 years ago, expansion packs where substantially more fleshed out than this current crop of unit packs , I remember picking up Medieval 1 Viking Invasion for £15 and the amount of content that was in that is staggering compared to what we get now.

    To come back to the original point I made at the beginning of my post; yes I understand that CA, and all gaming companies for that matter have a duty to get as much value for money out of their work as possible, thus over time the amount of content in a DLC gets smaller and the price gets higher. But equally we as players have a 'moral' duty to protest when we feel that we are being over-exploited and the price-hike is not proportionate to what we are getting or to how other gaming companies are gradually increasing their prices. It's a horrible and never-ending infernal circle is raising prices and the only thing that can slow it is the dissenting voices of customers who refuse to be cowed - or are you going to tell me you'd rather pay more for a game than less ?

    I really wanted to buy all of the DLC's for this game because having already clocked up hundreds of hours I feel I'd get dozens more from just one race. But on my meager student budget £13.99 a pop is just not really feasible.

    As a disclaimer, because judging by the state of this thread and some of the people in it I feel I need to get one in now, all of the previous post is my opinion backed up by some facts, and not me trying to tell people how to run the world.
    Post edited by Loubido on
  • Zatrakus95Zatrakus95 Registered Users Posts: 708
    Wraithzs said:

    Who is most I don't see the majority agreeing with you, they are enjoying the game and never go to the forum

    If logical arguments worked on the forums they would be probably much better or quite. Still keep on fighting the good fight.
  • dodge33cymrudodge33cymru Registered Users Posts: 2,101
    edited July 2016


    I'm sorry that I'm of a different mind than you, but I would rather they do the faction right

    That's fine. It's a discussion forum, would be boring if everyone agreed. But that's why I get frustrated at the number of people claiming to speak for everyone. For instance, when you say 'do the faction right', you mean to your personal hopes and expectations. It's pretty 'right' to me (I'd personally prefer a cheaper one with no Cygor or Razorgors, but with the Tuskgor, but can't have everything).

    I speak for me, there's a 'like' button or folk can +1 if they want to agree, otherwise I accept I'm on my own (I'm always on my own in opinions on racing sim forums!).

    :smiley:


    Besides, aren't sync kills something everyone misses apparently?

    I'm not sure you've been reading the sync kill threads. I think a slim majority are in favour of the overall combat improvements that the sync kills were removed for, though I could be wrong. There are definitely both preferences afoot.



    I feel the people who are only in it for an infantry battle are missing the fun of having it in a fantasy setting... any two guys can hit eachother with clubs. But not everyone can pick the other up and bite off it's head.

    Not for me. I played TT for years and, for all their faults, GW have some great storytellers and artists illustrating their books. For me, the fascination was always elves v dwarves, or skeletons v humans, or good elves v evil elves or ratmen v lizardmen. I'm not saying you're wrong to prefer little v large, just expressing that to me those monsters should be extremely rare if they show up at all; and won't miss them if they don't.

    Take the Lord of the Rings films. I much prefer the scene at Helm's Deep to the scene with the Balrog or Shelob, as it's that sense of scale that wows me. I appreciate maybe that's not for everyone though.



    resources - fire the people who can't animate and hire people who can. May seem cold, but business is cold.

    Are you American? Not a slight,g genuinely curious. I've worked in the US and in Europe and they have very different cultures in this regard. In the UK, unlike the US, you can't just fire someone on a permanent contract that you don't need, there's a rather long redundancy process to go through. And if you needed those same people for the upcoming expansions, maybe for battle maps (I don't know if those roles cross over) or for future titles, that might not be worth doing.

    Personally, I'm glad that the same people are being retained to make the campaign map for Ulthuan, the new world and other map areas, seeing as they've done a great job. Admittedly, I'd prefer them to focus on the Grand Campaign map, but if CA put them to work on a map of Middenland or Athel Loren inbetween, I can understand why, even if I personally have no use for it.


    The launch races still have a large variety to them, even if their rosters aren't "complete" they are a hell of a lot closer than the Beastmen are.

    Are they?

    I have had a Night Goblin TT army, but the game has no squig herds, squig hoppers, netters, Great Shamans or Night Goblin bosses to recreate it.

    I had a small Middenheim army, but have no White Wolves, Teutogen Guard or free company to make it here.

    I had 2000pts of Tzeentch Chaos Warriors, but no Discs for my sorcerers or the correct magic lore are available in game.


    They are what give them their flavor on the battlefield. Vampires would be nothing if not for their monsters. Greenskins would be nothing but dumb naked orcs if not for their giants, spiders, and chariots - not to mention they almost had no siege equipment besides the doom diver before launch.

    Beastmen are missing all of their flavor. They have really no chaos look to them - they are just a bunch of satyrs and minotaurs with different names.

    I don't have my VC books handy, but I believe Terrorgheists, Vargulfs, Vargheists, Crypt Horrors and several other units have only been added to their roster during GW's "everyone gets a monster" phase in 7th/8th edition. The one that killed off the game.

    (Incidentally, I actually can't stand the VC roster in game; most of the monstrous units listed above should only be available to Strigoi armies as a separate faction to von Carsteins IMO)

    Beastmen have their lore, they have the bulk of all their troops and, tuskgor chariots excepted, have all the units I have ever seen people use for the faction in TT.

    Heck, most of the units people are bemoaning didn't exist in their roster until the final edition and didn't even have a model until later.

    Flavour of the beastmen, to me, comes from a horde of mutated goatmen ambushing armies from all sides with no notice, and CA have given them all the troops to do this.

    You want monsters? Every unit on the roster here is a monster. I'm pretty sure I'd brick myself if I ever came across a minotaur late one night...!


    Sorry, I got a bit carried away with my ramble there. My main point is 'everyone can have an opinion', turns out mine is a long one!
  • PerfectVictoryPerfectVictory Registered Users Posts: 121
    It's not a moral issue. They make it, they set a price point and then you decide whether to buy it or not. If you think capitalism is immoral then that is an entirely different argument but claiming this DLC practice is a moral issue is just wrong. It is an example of how ignorance truly can be infectious.
  • RadiousRadious Senior Member Czech RepublicRegistered Users Posts: 1,281

    Radious said:

    Adding 3-5 more unique missing units to Beastmen and instead of super tiny campaign with 1 playable faction only adding more provinces and areas to GC would result in total happiness of majority - no rage about poor roster, no rage about useless campaign and no rage about expensive dlc. Proper rosters and additions to GC (instead of making tiny new ones) is what most players want adn always asked for.

    Well, we already know that more of the GC map will be opened up and unlocked in the future. Your issue seems to be that you want it now.....two months after release. Sorry, but that seems extremely out of touch. I would have thought someone with the name of "Radious" would have a better understanding of production.

    Personally, I am looking forward to the mini campaign. I want to see why they decided to do this. You have non idea how it will play, you are just ignorantly making assertions and depending upon your name to make them stick.
    New land is created for Beastmen and believe me, making whole new tiny campaign is 10 times more difficult (and expensive), then adding 3-4 new provinces to the GC. So production on this can be wasted, how many times play people GC and how many times they will play this tiny campaign (with 1 line of quests and 1 playable race only - previous mini campaigns in other TW games had atlest more playable factions)?
  • PerfectVictoryPerfectVictory Registered Users Posts: 121
    Radious said:

    Radious said:

    Adding 3-5 more unique missing units to Beastmen and instead of super tiny campaign with 1 playable faction only adding more provinces and areas to GC would result in total happiness of majority - no rage about poor roster, no rage about useless campaign and no rage about expensive dlc. Proper rosters and additions to GC (instead of making tiny new ones) is what most players want adn always asked for.

    Well, we already know that more of the GC map will be opened up and unlocked in the future. Your issue seems to be that you want it now.....two months after release. Sorry, but that seems extremely out of touch. I would have thought someone with the name of "Radious" would have a better understanding of production.

    Personally, I am looking forward to the mini campaign. I want to see why they decided to do this. You have non idea how it will play, you are just ignorantly making assertions and depending upon your name to make them stick.
    New land is created for Beastmen and believe me, making whole new tiny campaign is 10 times more difficult (and expensive), then adding 3-4 new provinces to the GC. So production on this can be wasted, how many times play people GC and how many times they will play this tiny campaign (with 1 line of quests and 1 playable race only - previous mini campaigns in other TW games had atlest more playable factions)?
    You are asking me questions that you should already know I don't have answers for. Is that the purpose of asking them? There is no way of knowing how much people will play that mini campaign. CA obviously thinks it will be well received thus why they decided to spend their time on it. It is their time and their investment. What they have over you on it is that they aren't ignorant about it while you are making ignorant assertions and riling up people by using your name to make assertions as if your word makes it true.


    In the end, you may be right but that wont be a bragging right because when you make that assertion now you make a public showing of making that assertion in an ignorant fashion so there is no credit in it later.

    If this DLC is garbage and not worth the value then CA is going to have a very hard time selling us the Wood Elf Campaign Pack two months from now. So far, they have done pretty well for themselves with this title. I am holding off my judgement until after this campaign pack release.

    If it sucks or its not worth the price then I will join you guys in voicing a negative opinion on the campaign pack. Why? Because I will want to see them do better with The Wood Elf Campaign Pack.
  • dodge33cymrudodge33cymru Registered Users Posts: 2,101
    Radious said:

    Proper rosters and additions to GC (instead of making tiny new ones) is what most players want adn always asked for.

    Did they though, when asked? Genuine question, because I can't remember the outcome of the Attila poll, but I remember it being asked and it was followed by Charlemagne and The Last Roman (neither of which were for me).

    I'm of the same basic opinion as you, GC over mini campaign all day long (GC creates its own stories, mini ones have theirs scripted), but I'm not sure everyone is. Certainly feels that opinion may have swung back the other way though, although the grass always seems to be greener in many of the threads here.
  • MasqueradeMasquerade Registered Users Posts: 292
    Radious said:

    Radious said:

    Adding 3-5 more unique missing units to Beastmen and instead of super tiny campaign with 1 playable faction only adding more provinces and areas to GC would result in total happiness of majority - no rage about poor roster, no rage about useless campaign and no rage about expensive dlc. Proper rosters and additions to GC (instead of making tiny new ones) is what most players want adn always asked for.

    Well, we already know that more of the GC map will be opened up and unlocked in the future. Your issue seems to be that you want it now.....two months after release. Sorry, but that seems extremely out of touch. I would have thought someone with the name of "Radious" would have a better understanding of production.

    Personally, I am looking forward to the mini campaign. I want to see why they decided to do this. You have non idea how it will play, you are just ignorantly making assertions and depending upon your name to make them stick.
    New land is created for Beastmen and believe me, making whole new tiny campaign is 10 times more difficult (and expensive), then adding 3-4 new provinces to the GC. So production on this can be wasted, how many times play people GC and how many times they will play this tiny campaign (with 1 line of quests and 1 playable race only - previous mini campaigns in other TW games had atlest more playable factions)?
    It might indeed be more difficult but they have an experienced team dedicated to just that. If you don't like it it's your opinion. Go make your unit mods and thats that.
  • LoubidoLoubido Registered Users Posts: 64

    It's not a moral issue. They make it, they set a price point and then you decide whether to buy it or not. If you think capitalism is immoral then that is an entirely different argument but claiming this DLC practice is a moral issue is just wrong. It is an example of how ignorance truly can be infectious.

    I am in no way saying that capitalism is immoral, in fact I refer to the fact that 'this is just the world we live in' several times in my post.

    What I am saying however is that if people feel like they are being exploited - which to many it seems that the set price point they have chosen is reflecting - then they have a moral obligation to protest.

    Surely you and many others can relate to that ?
  • PerfectVictoryPerfectVictory Registered Users Posts: 121
    edited July 2016
    Loubido said:

    It's not a moral issue. They make it, they set a price point and then you decide whether to buy it or not. If you think capitalism is immoral then that is an entirely different argument but claiming this DLC practice is a moral issue is just wrong. It is an example of how ignorance truly can be infectious.

    I am in no way saying that capitalism is immoral, in fact I refer to the fact that 'this is just the world we live in' several times in my post.

    What I am saying however is that if people feel like they are being exploited - which to many it seems that the set price point they have chosen is reflecting - then they have a moral obligation to protest.

    Surely you and many others can relate to that ?
    I can most definitely understand if people think this dlc is not worth the price point. Personally, I went ahead and preordered it because I know I am going to want to play it and test it out in order to see whether or not The Wood Elf Campaign Pack will be any good. I do personally find it very easy to think that this price is too high. I wont know that for sure though, in my opinion, until I actually play this DLC.

    What I don't agree with is any assertion that there is a moral imperative to protest something like this. You protest by not buying it. IF the sales of it are immediately low then it is more likely that a price reduction comes sooner rather than later AND The Wood Elfs Campaign Pack might be lower priced as well. With The Wood Elf Campaign Pack coming in two months, if the negative reaction of low purchase numbers is effective then there will be a CA response coming forth sooner rather than later because they will want to figure it out before The Wood Elf Campaign is launched two months from now.


    So, I understand but I don't view it as a moral thing. It is simply a flavor. You either like it or you don't, you either buy it or you don't. There is no morality to this. It is their creation. They created it thus they can charge whatever they like for it. It's on them if they charge too much and not enough people buy it for it to be profitable.
  • Sky_sweeperSky_sweeper Senior Member OklahomaRegistered Users Posts: 1,711


    I'm sorry that I'm of a different mind than you, but I would rather they do the faction right

    That's fine. It's a discussion forum, would be boring if everyone agreed. But that's why I get frustrated at the number of people claiming to speak for everyone. For instance, when you say 'do the faction right', you mean to your personal hopes and expectations. It's pretty 'right' to me (I'd personally prefer a cheaper one with no Cygor or Razorgors, but with the Tuskgor, but can't have everything).

    I speak for me, there's a 'like' button or folk can +1 if they want to agree, otherwise I accept I'm on my own (I'm always on my own in opinions on racing sim forums!).

    :smiley:


    Besides, aren't sync kills something everyone misses apparently?

    I'm not sure you've been reading the sync kill threads. I think a slim majority are in favour of the overall combat improvements that the sync kills were removed for, though I could be wrong. There are definitely both preferences afoot.



    I feel the people who are only in it for an infantry battle are missing the fun of having it in a fantasy setting... any two guys can hit eachother with clubs. But not everyone can pick the other up and bite off it's head.

    Not for me. I played TT for years and, for all their faults, GW have some great storytellers and artists illustrating their books. For me, the fascination was always elves v dwarves, or skeletons v humans, or good elves v evil elves or ratmen v lizardmen. I'm not saying you're wrong to prefer little v large, just expressing that to me those monsters should be extremely rare if they show up at all; and won't miss them if they don't.

    Take the Lord of the Rings films. I much prefer the scene at Helm's Deep to the scene with the Balrog or Shelob, as it's that sense of scale that wows me. I appreciate maybe that's not for everyone though.



    resources - fire the people who can't animate and hire people who can. May seem cold, but business is cold.

    Are you American? Not a slight,g genuinely curious. I've worked in the US and in Europe and they have very different cultures in this regard. In the UK, unlike the US, you can't just fire someone on a permanent contract that you don't need, there's a rather long redundancy process to go through. And if you needed those same people for the upcoming expansions, maybe for battle maps (I don't know if those roles cross over) or for future titles, that might not be worth doing.

    Personally, I'm glad that the same people are being retained to make the campaign map for Ulthuan, the new world and other map areas, seeing as they've done a great job. Admittedly, I'd prefer them to focus on the Grand Campaign map, but if CA put them to work on a map of Middenland or Athel Loren inbetween, I can understand why, even if I personally have no use for it.


    The launch races still have a large variety to them, even if their rosters aren't "complete" they are a hell of a lot closer than the Beastmen are.

    Are they?

    I have had a Night Goblin TT army, but the game has no squig herds, squig hoppers, netters, Great Shamans or Night Goblin bosses to recreate it.

    I had a small Middenheim army, but have no White Wolves, Teutogen Guard or free company to make it here.

    I had 2000pts of Tzeentch Chaos Warriors, but no Discs for my sorcerers or the correct magic lore are available in game.


    They are what give them their flavor on the battlefield. Vampires would be nothing if not for their monsters. Greenskins would be nothing but dumb naked orcs if not for their giants, spiders, and chariots - not to mention they almost had no siege equipment besides the doom diver before launch.

    Beastmen are missing all of their flavor. They have really no chaos look to them - they are just a bunch of satyrs and minotaurs with different names.

    I don't have my VC books handy, but I believe Terrorgheists, Vargulfs, Vargheists, Crypt Horrors and several other units have only been added to their roster during GW's "everyone gets a monster" phase in 7th/8th edition. The one that killed off the game.

    (Incidentally, I actually can't stand the VC roster in game; most of the monstrous units listed above should only be available to Strigoi armies as a separate faction to von Carsteins IMO)

    Beastmen have their lore, they have the bulk of all their troops and, tuskgor chariots excepted, have all the units I have ever seen people use for the faction in TT.

    Heck, most of the units people are bemoaning didn't exist in their roster until the final edition and didn't even have a model until later.

    Flavour of the beastmen, to me, comes from a horde of mutated goatmen ambushing armies from all sides with no notice, and CA have given them all the troops to do this.

    You want monsters? Every unit on the roster here is a monster. I'm pretty sure I'd brick myself if I ever came across a minotaur late one night...!


    Sorry, I got a bit carried away with my ramble there. My main point is 'everyone can have an opinion', turns out mine is a long one!
    Just a note on the units your brought up - most of those are specific to a sub-faction, not the whole race (not sure on squigs as I'm not familiar with the greenskin roster very much, but I know night-goblins use them a lot). But middenheim? That's still empire, they just have sub-units. Sure it would be nice to have, but as they are not on the roster for the entire empire as a whole I do not see their absence as a hinderence.

    However with Beastmen, I'm fairly sure Ghorgons, Jabbers, and Harpies are specific to a certain clan. thats my logic in this matter. They are race-wide units, not faction specific.

    Yes i'm american, so job turn-over is very common. I've had it happen to me several times.
    A brave man marches into danger and ignores his fear. A courageous man marches into danger while embracing his fear.

    OS: Windows 7 Premium 64 bit
    CPU: Intel i7 4970k 4.0 Ghz
    GPU: AMD r9 290x 4GB
    RAM: 16GB DDR3

    Veteran of the Total War franchise since Shogun: Total war. (I was 10)
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,016
    edited July 2016
    What I am saying however is that if people feel like they are being exploited - which to many it seems that the set price point they have chosen is reflecting - then they have a moral obligation to protest.
    How much is many? I see the same dozen people complaining about it on this forum. 12,000 posts made by 12 people still only represent the opinions of 12 people.

    Every time CA sells something, the reflexive complaining commences, but the goods sell anyway. This board has a credibility problem if the loudest people on it tirelessly assume minority positions which get overruled by the wallets of the majority.

    Do you get it? The "feedback" given here is of low quality to CA because of that, since it never reflects the attitude of the playerbase at large.

  • wraithzswraithzs Member Registered Users Posts: 65
    Loubido said:

    It's not a moral issue. They make it, they set a price point and then you decide whether to buy it or not. If you think capitalism is immoral then that is an entirely different argument but claiming this DLC practice is a moral issue is just wrong. It is an example of how ignorance truly can be infectious.

    I am in no way saying that capitalism is immoral, in fact I refer to the fact that 'this is just the world we live in' several times in my post.

    What I am saying however is that if people feel like they are being exploited - which to many it seems that the set price point they have chosen is reflecting - then they have a moral obligation to protest.

    Surely you and many others can relate to that ?
    Oh I understand your viewpoint but you have to protest with your wallet not your mouth don't buy the DLC and if it truly not worth the price change will come if not then other people clearly don't think it a bad thing
  • LoubidoLoubido Registered Users Posts: 64

    Loubido said:

    It's not a moral issue. They make it, they set a price point and then you decide whether to buy it or not. If you think capitalism is immoral then that is an entirely different argument but claiming this DLC practice is a moral issue is just wrong. It is an example of how ignorance truly can be infectious.

    I am in no way saying that capitalism is immoral, in fact I refer to the fact that 'this is just the world we live in' several times in my post.

    What I am saying however is that if people feel like they are being exploited - which to many it seems that the set price point they have chosen is reflecting - then they have a moral obligation to protest.

    Surely you and many others can relate to that ?
    I can most definitely understand if people think this dlc is not worth the price point. Personally, I went ahead and preordered it because I know I am going to want to play it and test it out in order to see whether or not The Wood Elf Campaign Pack will be any good. I do personally find it very easy to think that this price is too high. I wont know that for sure though, in my opinion, until I actually play this DLC.

    What I don't agree with is any assertion that there is a moral imperative to protest something like this. You protest by not buying it. IF the sales of it are immediately low then it is more likely that a price reduction comes sooner rather than later AND The Wood Elfs Campaign Pack might be lower priced as well. With The Wood Elf Campaign Pack coming in two weeks, if the negative reaction of low purchase numbers is effective then there will be a CA response coming forth sooner rather than later because they will want to figure it out before The Wood Elf Campaign is launched two months from now.


    So, I understand but I don't view it as a moral thing. It is simply a flavor. You either like it or you don't, you either buy it or you don't. There is no morality to this. It is their creation. They created it thus they can charge whatever they like for it. It's on them if they charge too much and not enough people buy it for it to be profitable.
    Fair enough, I respect your right to an opinion as you have respected mine, I wish others would take the same approach as you.
  • RadiousRadious Senior Member Czech RepublicRegistered Users Posts: 1,281

    Radious said:

    Radious said:

    Adding 3-5 more unique missing units to Beastmen and instead of super tiny campaign with 1 playable faction only adding more provinces and areas to GC would result in total happiness of majority - no rage about poor roster, no rage about useless campaign and no rage about expensive dlc. Proper rosters and additions to GC (instead of making tiny new ones) is what most players want adn always asked for.

    Well, we already know that more of the GC map will be opened up and unlocked in the future. Your issue seems to be that you want it now.....two months after release. Sorry, but that seems extremely out of touch. I would have thought someone with the name of "Radious" would have a better understanding of production.

    Personally, I am looking forward to the mini campaign. I want to see why they decided to do this. You have non idea how it will play, you are just ignorantly making assertions and depending upon your name to make them stick.
    New land is created for Beastmen and believe me, making whole new tiny campaign is 10 times more difficult (and expensive), then adding 3-4 new provinces to the GC. So production on this can be wasted, how many times play people GC and how many times they will play this tiny campaign (with 1 line of quests and 1 playable race only - previous mini campaigns in other TW games had atlest more playable factions)?
    You are asking me questions that you should already know I don't have answers for. Is that the purpose of asking them? There is no way of knowing how much people will play that mini campaign. CA obviously thinks it will be well received thus why they decided to spend their time on it. It is their time and their investment. What they have over you on it is that they aren't ignorant about it while you are making ignorant assertions and riling up people by using your name to make assertions as if your word makes it true.


    In the end, you may be right but that wont be a bragging right because when you make that assertion now you make a public showing of making that assertion in an ignorant fashion so there is no credit in it later.

    If this DLC is garbage and not worth the value then CA is going to have a very hard time selling us the Wood Elf Campaign Pack two months from now. So far, they have done pretty well for themselves with this title. I am holding off my judgement until after this campaign pack release.

    If it sucks or its not worth the price then I will join you guys in voicing a negative opinion on the campaign pack. Why? Because I will want to see them do better with The Wood Elf Campaign Pack.

    I am not forcing anyone to buy it or not to buy it. Everyone has free will and should be mature enough to decide this for themselves.

    I expressed only my opinion what i think would be better and what I would prefer, others may prefere soemthing totaly different. Nothing ignorant on that.

    I personally dislike mini campaigns (and this with sofar all info, map size, playable factons) is really the smallest from all of them (Rome 2, Attila, WH). So yes, i would prefer (again me personally) rather have few more provinces in GC so it would improve whole WH experience, not just small Beastmen story.

    More units would be great, but i deal with this very long time and have no issues making some epic stuff by myself.

    About the price i dont care. Thats totaly up to CA, GW , Sega and Steam how much it will cost and its up to people to decid if its worth to them or not.

  • PerfectVictoryPerfectVictory Registered Users Posts: 121
    Radious said:

    Radious said:

    Radious said:

    Adding 3-5 more unique missing units to Beastmen and instead of super tiny campaign with 1 playable faction only adding more provinces and areas to GC would result in total happiness of majority - no rage about poor roster, no rage about useless campaign and no rage about expensive dlc. Proper rosters and additions to GC (instead of making tiny new ones) is what most players want adn always asked for.

    Well, we already know that more of the GC map will be opened up and unlocked in the future. Your issue seems to be that you want it now.....two months after release. Sorry, but that seems extremely out of touch. I would have thought someone with the name of "Radious" would have a better understanding of production.

    Personally, I am looking forward to the mini campaign. I want to see why they decided to do this. You have non idea how it will play, you are just ignorantly making assertions and depending upon your name to make them stick.
    New land is created for Beastmen and believe me, making whole new tiny campaign is 10 times more difficult (and expensive), then adding 3-4 new provinces to the GC. So production on this can be wasted, how many times play people GC and how many times they will play this tiny campaign (with 1 line of quests and 1 playable race only - previous mini campaigns in other TW games had atlest more playable factions)?
    You are asking me questions that you should already know I don't have answers for. Is that the purpose of asking them? There is no way of knowing how much people will play that mini campaign. CA obviously thinks it will be well received thus why they decided to spend their time on it. It is their time and their investment. What they have over you on it is that they aren't ignorant about it while you are making ignorant assertions and riling up people by using your name to make assertions as if your word makes it true.


    In the end, you may be right but that wont be a bragging right because when you make that assertion now you make a public showing of making that assertion in an ignorant fashion so there is no credit in it later.

    If this DLC is garbage and not worth the value then CA is going to have a very hard time selling us the Wood Elf Campaign Pack two months from now. So far, they have done pretty well for themselves with this title. I am holding off my judgement until after this campaign pack release.

    If it sucks or its not worth the price then I will join you guys in voicing a negative opinion on the campaign pack. Why? Because I will want to see them do better with The Wood Elf Campaign Pack.

    I am not forcing anyone to buy it or not to buy it. Everyone has free will and should be mature enough to decide this for themselves.

    I expressed only my opinion what i think would be better and what I would prefer, others may prefere soemthing totaly different. Nothing ignorant on that.

    I personally dislike mini campaigns (and this with sofar all info, map size, playable factons) is really the smallest from all of them (Rome 2, Attila, WH). So yes, i would prefer (again me personally) rather have few more provinces in GC so it would improve whole WH experience, not just small Beastmen story.

    More units would be great, but i deal with this very long time and have no issues making some epic stuff by myself.

    About the price i dont care. Thats totaly up to CA, GW , Sega and Steam how much it will cost and its up to people to decid if its worth to them or not.

    Fair enough. I think you bring up a strong point with the modding capability. Guys like you will be able to round out the unit roster with the other unit types that you want, correct? Hell, you probably will even be able to create a Beastmen roster of your own as a mod that could be placed into the campaign? Beastmen are going to be in The Campaign whether you buy the DLC or not so whatever changes you make, you can easily have them placed into the new existing faction.


    CA knows you can do this, they have provided the support so that you can actually do this. That is pretty big of them. Do you give them credit for that as well? You have certainly made your name very well known for quite some time in making your mods. How nice is this system in place with TW: Warhammer in regards to having your mods easily subscribed to and immediately placed into the game? Pretty nice right?

    Personally, I like a good story. I wish they did this for most, if not every single playable faction. The story better not feel cheap though, or else the reaction we are seeing now will be nothing compared to if the reaction was actually a majority view.


    We will be getting more provinces, we will be getting an expanded GC map. You know that is coming, we all do. We are only two months past initial release. The fact that this DLC campaign pack is coming so soon after release seems to be lost on some.


    When you look at the data mined files, you can see exactly when the map gets expanded because of a faction such as Tomb Kings having dlc files listed. It's coming.
  • dodge33cymrudodge33cymru Registered Users Posts: 2,101


    Just a note on the units your brought up - most of those are specific to a sub-faction, not the whole race (not sure on squigs as I'm not familiar with the greenskin roster very much, but I know night-goblins use them a lot). But middenheim? That's still empire, they just have sub-units. Sure it would be nice to have, but as they are not on the roster for the entire empire as a whole I do not see their absence as a hinderence.

    However with Beastmen, I'm fairly sure Ghorgons, Jabbers, and Harpies are specific to a certain clan. thats my logic in this matter. They are race-wide units, not faction specific.

    Yeah, I take your point there, although what I was trying to get at was that many armies of the Empire and Greenskins use White Wolf knights and squigs respectively, far more common and historical than Ghorgons or Jabberslythes have ever been for beastmen.


    Yes i'm american, so job turn-over is very common. I've had it happen to me several times.

    Sorry to hear that, having worked on both sides I don't miss US employment laws. Over in Europe (albeit my idiot compatriots recently voted out of the EU, so the UK might not keep it's rules for long) it's a little less dog eat dog and if you take on full-time employees (as CA need to avoid losing them to other companies and projects no doubt) you have obligations over their short term futures.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 20,137
    Off topic and personal insult comment posts deleted.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
  • Nyanko73Nyanko73 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,351
    Loubido said:

    It's not a moral issue. They make it, they set a price point and then you decide whether to buy it or not. If you think capitalism is immoral then that is an entirely different argument but claiming this DLC practice is a moral issue is just wrong. It is an example of how ignorance truly can be infectious.

    I am in no way saying that capitalism is immoral, in fact I refer to the fact that 'this is just the world we live in' several times in my post.

    What I am saying however is that if people feel like they are being exploited - which to many it seems that the set price point they have chosen is reflecting - then they have a moral obligation to protest.

    Surely you and many others can relate to that ?
    Well, capitalism is immoral but there are some studios out there which make sure their fans get what they deliver at a reasonable price. Let's say CD Project Red, Larian or Hairbrained Schemes for instance. If those studios didn't exist, we would blindly pay overpriced stuff all the time. But thankfully, they do and we have the right to complain about some bad practices when we see them. So a DLC for 30% of the price of a game which counts 4 factions and a grand campaign for 1 faction + a mini campaign feels like definitely overpriced.

    Team Yennefer

    "A blinding flash materialised into a transparent sphere, and inside it loomed a shape, assuming contours and shapes at frightening speed. Dandelion recognised it at once. He knew those wild, black curls and the obsidian star on a velvet ribbon. What he didn’t know and had never seen before was the face. It was a face of rage and fury, the face of the goddess of vengeance, destruction and death." - Time of contempt
  • PerfectVictoryPerfectVictory Registered Users Posts: 121
    Nyanko73 said:

    Loubido said:

    It's not a moral issue. They make it, they set a price point and then you decide whether to buy it or not. If you think capitalism is immoral then that is an entirely different argument but claiming this DLC practice is a moral issue is just wrong. It is an example of how ignorance truly can be infectious.

    I am in no way saying that capitalism is immoral, in fact I refer to the fact that 'this is just the world we live in' several times in my post.

    What I am saying however is that if people feel like they are being exploited - which to many it seems that the set price point they have chosen is reflecting - then they have a moral obligation to protest.

    Surely you and many others can relate to that ?
    Well, capitalism is immoral but there are some studios out there which make sure their fans get what they deliver at a reasonable price. Let's say CD Project Red, Larian or Hairbrained Schemes for instance. If those studios didn't exist, we would blindly pay overpriced stuff all the time. But thankfully, they do and we have the right to complain about some bad practices when we see them. So a DLC for 30% of the price of a game which counts 4 factions and a grand campaign for 1 faction + a mini campaign feels like definitely overpriced.
    No, capitalism is not immoral. Crony capitalism or faux capitalism is immoral because it is not as it is represented. It is a false show. True capitalism is about as moral as it gets and about as democratic as it can get as well.

    That is a discussion for a different thread though. Couldn't leave that kind of an absolute false statement just sitting there, infecting minds.

    It doesn't matter how it feels now. It matters how it feels after we actually play it. Hell, we haven't even seen anyone else play it yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.