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

Rifle force.

SAR689SAR689 Posts: 21Registered Users
I don't think the rifle squads do enough damage.
«13

Comments

  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,172Registered Users
    how much damage would you like them to do? :)
  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,382Registered Users
  • AIMA_DracklorAIMA_Dracklor Posts: 4,372Registered Users
    Wich rifle squads ? Overall they do anough damage since they have tons of AP damage, and they are good at shooting flying units because of projectile speed, but I would not say no to having a total of 20 damage for them since they got a bad arc of fire


  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    Kranox said:

    Wich rifle squads ? Overall they do anough damage since they have tons of AP damage, and they are good at shooting flying units because of projectile speed, but I would not say no to having a total of 20 damage for them since they got a bad arc of fire

    At max they could stagger a bit more.
  • AnsaAnsa Posts: 17Registered Users
    I feel like gunpowder units in the game, namely Handgunners and Thunderers, are already destructive enough.
    A squad salvo usually drops morale of a unit being shot at below ground, and if you skill into them they do insane damage, melting their targets.

    I basically walk over Undead/whatever as soon as I get my tier 3 units as Empire, Greatswords and Handgunners.
    Same for Dwarves when they get Thunderers basically.

    Overall, I feel they are in good place - hard to position properly, but when you do, they melt faces.
    So, no need for additional buffing, really.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Posts: 2,962Registered Users
    Their damage is fine.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    Maybe give them some more penetration; increasing it to the same value as pistols for example would be both appropriate and increase the performance of handgun armed units against multiple entity units while not altering their overall damage.
  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,382Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    cool_lad said:

    Maybe give them some more penetration; increasing it to the same value as pistols for example would be both appropriate and increase the performance of handgun armed units against multiple entity units while not altering their overall damage.



    I think the point is that threads like this spring up every few weeks from cool lad, just under a different name.

    Even without the tests, it is evident from observing in game effects that the premise is wrong. You can hardly expect people to address same issues every week.

    Post edited by Canuovea on
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,929Registered Users
    edited December 2018



    I think the point is that threads like this spring up every few weeks from cool lad, just under a different name.

    Even without the tests, it is evident from observing in game effects that the premise is wrong. You can hardly expect people to address same issues every week.

    You're not even having the same conversation as the people who want buffs to guns.

    You are looking at the issue though the lenses of balance, is it balanced (y/n.) If (y) then end of discussion, if (n) then further discuss. You can do all the test you want about how guns compete against infantry, against single targets, against armored, etc. etc. it doesn't matter.

    The people who want changes to guns aren't talking about balance(at least in that way,) they are talking about the gameplay and flavor offered by the current balance. In which all those test, all that evidence is irrelevant.

    We are having a subjective discussion regarding the vision for the game and how the current balance influences it.

    This is something I absolutely hate about balance discussion and "top players" in any game. Gameplay, fun, flavor, etc. all this goes out the window for the shake of balance and balance alone.
    Post edited by Canuovea on
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • ptavangarptavangar Posts: 1,148Registered Users
    Lol they are already OP as it is
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    edited December 2018



    I think the point is that threads like this spring up every few weeks from cool lad, just under a different name.

    Even without the tests, it is evident from observing in game effects that the premise is wrong. You can hardly expect people to address same issues every week.

    'Earth is flat'
    'No it isn't and here's the proof... '

    Next week
    'Earth is flat'
    'no. why are you asking the same question? you were already presented with the evidence'

    Next week
    'ok, new theory. earth is not round'
    '......'

    Repeat ad nauseum

    You're not even having the same conversation as the people who want buffs to guns.

    You are looking at the issue though the lenses of balance, is it balanced (y/n.) If (y) then end of discussion, if (n) then further discuss. You can do all the test you want about how guns compete against infantry, against single targets, against armored, etc. etc. it doesn't matter.

    The people who want changes to guns aren't talking about balance(at least in that way,) they are talking about the gameplay and flavor offered by the current balance. In which all those test, all that evidence is irrelevant.

    We are having a subjective discussion regarding the vision for the game and how the current balance influences it.

    This is something I absolutely hate about balance discussion and "top players" in any game. Gameplay, fun, flavor, etc. all this goes out the window for the shake of balance and balance alone.
    Pretty much. And that's one of the reasons that such discussions elicit such visceral responses from those who favour mechanical balance. The problem is, if you go for pure mechanical balance, you pretty much squeeze the flavour and life out of the game. It essentially tries to turn Total War into a micro intensive Starcraft like game, where anything resembling tactics is overshadowed by a fancy game of Rock-Paper-Scissors that's more about micro than tactics.

    A simple example are Outriders. They're useable AP rifle cavalry. By the standards of the "top players" they're fine as is. Problem is, they're not really Outriders then; since they essentially act as cut price handgunners on horses instead of the Empire's ranged elite; their repeater handgun may as well be a standard handgun, since there's nothing that actually differentiates it from a handgun.

    Or take the Mortar for example, which is also considered fine as is since there's some match ups where it can be used. Or take the terrible state of differentiation between Crossbows, HE archers and Glade Guard; where each unit just feels like inferior copies of the same unit.

    The list of terrible units justified by this myopic idea of MP balance is rather long, and each change makes the game less flavourful and enjoyable for the rest of us.

    And its not like these views are unbiased either; there's a pretty heavy bias within their views against a host of unit categories; anything that gets in the way of herohammer and monsterhammer, or threatens the prevalent melee, heavy cav and single entity meta leads to screams of OP and calls for nerfs.
  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,382Registered Users



    I think the point is that threads like this spring up every few weeks from cool lad, just under a different name.

    Even without the tests, it is evident from observing in game effects that the premise is wrong. You can hardly expect people to address same issues every week.

    'Earth is flat'
    'No it isn't and here's the proof... '

    Next week
    'Earth is flat'
    'no. why are you asking the same question? you were already presented with the evidence'

    Next week
    'ok, new theory. earth is not round'
    '......'

    Repeat ad nauseum

    You're not even having the same conversation as the people who want buffs to guns.

    You are looking at the issue though the lenses of balance, is it balanced (y/n.) If (y) then end of discussion, if (n) then further discuss. You can do all the test you want about how guns compete against infantry, against single targets, against armored, etc. etc. it doesn't matter.

    The people who want changes to guns aren't talking about balance(at least in that way,) they are talking about the gameplay and flavor offered by the current balance. In which all those test, all that evidence is irrelevant.

    We are having a subjective discussion regarding the vision for the game and how the current balance influences it.

    This is something I absolutely hate about balance discussion and "top players" in any game. Gameplay, fun, flavor, etc. all this goes out the window for the shake of balance and balance alone.
    ElectorOfWurttemberg, i can respect that, and, although I don't think the balance forum is the place for that, I think it is a perfectly valid discussion. I do not think the majority of the players will agree with you: this is not a pike and gun game, and as such, guns should not have a central role in the game.

    I can respect you wanting to discuss guns working in another way. A design change that affects balance, which is not the same as a balance change. But if someone wants to have that discussion, it should be done in a honest way: that person should simply say that he thinks guns would be funnier if they worked in whatever the way. But cool lad has asked for this change (in the balance forum) several times, by clearly implying that he thought guns were weak. And each time he is proven wrong, he proposes the same change in another way. And it feels like he simply wants buffs to his preferred units.
    cool_lad said:


    Pretty much. And that's one of the reasons that such discussions elicit such visceral responses from those who favour mechanical balance. The problem is, if you go for pure mechanical balance, you pretty much squeeze the flavour and life out of the game. It essentially tries to turn Total War into a micro intensive Starcraft like game, where anything resembling tactics is overshadowed by a fancy game of Rock-Paper-Scissors that's more about micro than tactics.

    A simple example are Outriders. They're useable AP rifle cavalry. By the standards of the "top players" they're fine as is. Problem is, they're not really Outriders then; since they essentially act as cut price handgunners on horses instead of the Empire's ranged elite; their repeater handgun may as well be a standard handgun, since there's nothing that actually differentiates it from a handgun.

    Or take the Mortar for example, which is also considered fine as is since there's some match ups where it can be used. Or take the terrible state of differentiation between Crossbows, HE archers and Glade Guard; where each unit just feels like inferior copies of the same unit.

    The list of terrible units justified by this myopic idea of MP balance is rather long, and each change makes the game less flavourful and enjoyable for the rest of us.

    And its not like these views are unbiased either; there's a pretty heavy bias within their views against a host of unit categories; anything that gets in the way of herohammer and monsterhammer, or threatens the prevalent melee, heavy cav and single entity meta leads to screams of OP and calls for nerfs.

    Even if you say this, most of your threads until now simply seemed like you were asking for buffs.


    And in any case, even if it is true that you are worried about design and not balance, most of your proposals seem badly thought. If you want to ask for a change such as that, you should first think:

    - "Is it doable from a mechanical way?" Some of the changes you propose seem simply un-doable without a great amount of work form CA. Which generates cost of opportunity issues. I mean, CA has limtied resources. Do we really want them to address that issue? Maybe we do, or maybe CA should focus on another one (should be answered in a case by case basis).

    - "How will it affect balance? Is it really an issue or a personal preference?" I mean, I can understand ElectorOfWurttemberg's position of wanting a better game in the long run even if it means balance issues in the "no-that-short-of-a-time" (let's not forget CA's terrible patching policy). But that stands true for real design issues, like the monster mash having to be toned down, specially some patches ago. What you are proposing are big changes based simply on your personal preferences.
    cool_lad said:

    The list of terrible units justified by this myopic idea of MP balance is rather long, and each change makes the game less flavourful and enjoyable for the rest of us.

    Are you sure about this? Are you sure the way those units currently are isn't the more flavorful and enjoyable for most of the players? Aren't you trying to impose your own, selfish vision of the game?

    I mean, in fact, the units you mention are the perfect example of units that may or may not need some balance changes, but are perfectly fine design wise, and, i think, considered perfectly fine and enjoyable by most players.

    - Outriders already have repeating handguns: they have much faster reloading time than their foot ones. In fact, the current system is more representative of how a semi-automatic rifle works than what you proposed (which, iirc, was making them fire several projectiles in each shot).

    - Glade guards, HE archers and crossbows seem like copies of the same unit because they are AND SHOULD BE. They are line archers. Their point is firing from behind your infantry line. They fill an specific, core role that is needed in the three armies if you want combined arms armies to be viable for them. Most people in the forum (i think) agree that this units are, design wise, completely okay, even if they may need balance changes. Plus, they already have important differences right now.

    And, btw, those factions already have other units to fill those more niche and flavorful roles. Any "flavorful changes" as the ones you proposed would simply make them overlap with existing units, while making standard "combined arms" compositions, in which what you want is your units to be cost effective, more difficult to play. And as a result, making the faction less flavorful and enjoyable.

    And, btw, this is not intended to be a personal attack. I think all the players in this section of the forum, you included, are probably the ones that care the most about balance (internal and external), unique mechanics, armies as varied and enjoyable as possible, etc. And as such, i think our discussions make the game better. But if we want those discussions to be viable, we should try to avoid imposing our balance biases and personal preferences (we all have some) to the others.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    I'll respond to @Pocman here without reposting his entire reply:-

    1. Let's be clear here; I think that the most myopic view here is that balance is simply something for MP or that it should be dictated by the trends and ideas of MP. Balance isn't just about what seems viable or seemingly too good for it's price in MP matches.

    ElectorOfWurttemberg is in fact absolutely correct in posting this in a balance thread, since faction balance isn't just about making each faction viable along the lines of MP, it is significantly more about making each faction seem both distinct and perform well on its own strengths. The big flaw with MP balancing is that it places great emphasis on coubtrpicking and Rock-Paper-Scissors style of gameplay. So for example, a unit of Outriders is good simply because it acts as a source of mounted ranged AP or that a crossbow acting like a cut price longbow is fine since they're all line archers and one is cheaper than the other.

    A fundamental concept of warfare is that one must not rely on the mistakes of the enemy, but must instead be assured of their own position while deceiving the enemy. The current meta for MP perverts this by essentially focusing on unit and faction countepicking; instead of playing to their own strengths, armies are made and used while focusing on any trying to exploit the enemy's weakness.

    Therefore, we seem to have very different concepts of balance here. While you think that a balance is about being able to cost effectively exploit various weaknesses of the enemy, I believe that balance is all about each faction being able to fully and effectively utilise it's own strengths (and being sufficiently strong in those strengths to begin with).

    2. Virtually none of the changes I've asked for are particularly hard to implement. They're mostly changes to values or the addition of new unit rules; something that is an eminently easy change to make. Fixing the Outriders' repeaters for example is a matter of altering a single value.

    3. Referring to guns specifically. I don't want guns to be OP; I do however want them to be capable of being used like guns instead of acting like a worse/riskier version of AP archers. A gunpowder based army shouldn't be addressed with the same tactics as a high medieval army or a rush army. The way that gunpowder tactics are forced to work in the game is a travesty that turns them into an extremely niche pick instead of a viable core choice.

    Let's take the units you seem to think are alright:-
    1. Outriders do in fact suffer from a bad implementation. The rate of fire bug that makes them take double the time to fire has been acknowledged by the devs as being particularly difficult to fix due to their animations. Therefore, an implementation that's closest to their TT ruleset would be the way to go for this unit. It's not even a question of whether or not this should be done, since every other unit that came after them did in fact get the multishot rule. Outriders are therefore the odd one out in not getting their multishot rule and suffer due to their halved rate of fire because of a known bug and odd implementation. If the multishot rule exists, it should be given to all the units that did have it, instead of specifically excluding a single unit and giving that unit a broken alternative implementation. It's disingenuous to seek to excuse this bad deviation without first explaining why the same logic shouldn't be applied to every single other unit that has the multishot rule.

    2. Glade Guard, Crossbowmen and HE archers aren't the same units. They all have different weapons that had completely different ways of working in the rulebooks. There's no actual reason to equate them and simply make the others into worse versions of the same unit. To do so would imbalance them, since that would essentially forcibly equalise them; something that is the definition of bad balancing, since it would homogenise these different units and thus make them not play to their own strengths. You confuse the unit for the role; while all these units can be used for frontline indirect ranged support, this does not make them the same or even similar unit.
  • PippingtonPippington Posts: 2,024Registered Users
    "It's not about balance, it's about design vision"

    ...yeah and when you make your own version of the game, you can decide the 'vision'. As it is, CA's game, CA's vision.

    Mods exist.


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • SarmatiansSarmatians Posts: 3,233Registered Users
    edited December 2018



    I think the point is that threads like this spring up every few weeks from cool lad, just under a different name.

    Even without the tests, it is evident from observing in game effects that the premise is wrong. You can hardly expect people to address same issues every week.

    'Earth is flat'
    'No it isn't and here's the proof... '

    Next week
    'Earth is flat'
    'no. why are you asking the same question? you were already presented with the evidence'

    Next week
    'ok, new theory. earth is not round'
    '......'

    Repeat ad nauseum

    You're not even having the same conversation as the people who want buffs to guns.

    You are looking at the issue though the lenses of balance, is it balanced (y/n.) If (y) then end of discussion, if (n) then further discuss. You can do all the test you want about how guns compete against infantry, against single targets, against armored, etc. etc. it doesn't matter.

    The people who want changes to guns aren't talking about balance(at least in that way,) they are talking about the gameplay and flavor offered by the current balance. In which all those test, all that evidence is irrelevant.

    We are having a subjective discussion regarding the vision for the game and how the current balance influences it.

    This is something I absolutely hate about balance discussion and "top players" in any game. Gameplay, fun, flavor, etc. all this goes out the window for the shake of balance and balance alone.
    Well, what kind of 'fun' and 'gameplay' there would be if gunners are buffed to the point that the side that has more wins?

    And I'm not a top player by any means.

    Also, let's not pretend this wasn't billed as balance, with claims how guns are inferior to bows and crossbows. After many threads and solid evidence provided for the contrary, now it becomes a 'fun' issue?

    Fine. We all have a right to an opinion, but then make a suggestion in the suggestion part of the forum. This is for balance issues.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,929Registered Users
    edited December 2018

    "It's not about balance, it's about design vision"

    ...yeah and when you make your own version of the game, you can decide the 'vision'. As it is, CA's game, CA's vision.

    Mods exist.

    Why do you even post here if you have such a nihilistic outlook on it. You, as a player can and do influence the design decisions CA takes, no you're not the CEO but that does not mean you lack influence.



    Well, what kind of 'fun' and 'gameplay' there would be if gunners are buffed to the point that the side that has more wins?

    And I'm not a top player by any means.

    Also, let's not pretend this wasn't billed as balance, with claims how guns are inferior to bows and crossbows. After many threads and solid evidence provided for the contrary, now it becomes a 'fun' issue?

    Fine. We all have a right to an opinion, but then make a suggestion in the suggestion part of the forum. This is for balance issues.

    Pocman said:



    ElectorOfWurttemberg, i can respect that, and, although I don't think the balance forum is the place for that, I think it is a perfectly valid discussion. I do not think the majority of the players will agree with you: this is not a pike and gun game, and as such, guns should not have a central role in the game.

    I can respect you wanting to discuss guns working in another way. A design change that affects balance, which is not the same as a balance change. But if someone wants to have that discussion, it should be done in a honest way: that person should simply say that he thinks guns would be funnier if they worked in whatever the way. But cool lad has asked for this change (in the balance forum) several times, by clearly implying that he thought guns were weak. And each time he is proven wrong, he proposes the same change in another way. And it feels like he simply wants buffs to his preferred units.

    And I disagree, this is a discussion on balance. Game play is down stream of balance and is IMO a bit hypocritical to say "Go make a post in a dead part of the forums that has no influence" while you make post that are influenced heavily by your subjective vision for the game. As does everyone.

    Every post here is done so to shift the pick rates, to change the game play and play styles available to the faction. for exp Lotus Moons "Syreens vs Cairn Wraiths" is ultimately a discussion on that very issue. Even more so as it is a discussion on a low pick rate unit in an OP faction. To increase Wraiths pick rate is not going to balance much, it's going to open up other play styles though, which is desirable for the VC.

    I understand that the game as a whole is not a pike and gun game. But you know what the game is, asymmetric. Well it use to be, but that keeps getting chip away to a point where a lot of the factions feel the same.

    I think the game is big enough for a faction to have the pike and shot play style be viable.

    As for @Sarmatians

    It is not impossible to rebalance guns around different price brackets, actually it's not only not impossible, it's very basic. A unit can be balance at 100g, 200g, 300g, etc. etc. etc. each offering different play styles. As you go up in price, the unit becomes more 'elite' and more capable, but as you go down in price the unit becomes more accessible.

    If the criticism leveled at guns is that they are not strong enough, We could rebalance them around a higher price bracket and increase their capabilities to match expectations for how guns perform.

    Alternatively if guns are not accessible enough, we can rebalance them around a lower price bracket increasing their accessibility and making up for their capabilities with numbers.

    At 600g, there is a little wiggle room at which the performance of the unit can be nerf/buff and still maintain it self as a cost effective and balanced unit. If it becomes to great, then you will have to change the price.

    Just because I am dissatisfied with how guns perform and play right now, does not mean I want them to be an easy I.Win button, or did you think I was being literal when I referenced Fall of the Samurai.

    As for it being "Billed as a balanced discussion"
    As I said above, IMO It is a balance discussion, I am just being blunt about my motives.

    Bows are better, they're more cost efficient, more accessible making them more expendable and allows for tactics that increase survivability, there is very little diminishing returns with focus fire from mass archers, they have 160+ range, they don't have LoS issues, etc. In the case of Handgunners, it's a flat out hard counter.

    Guns are good vs Armor so there's that ;)

    I don't know where these many thread are that prove that wrong but I am interested. I do know Pippington showed Dark Shard(?) are just as capable as guns vs single targets (which goes against your claim) but that IMO is debatable in practice when your opponent is trying to dodge you, which is harder to do with the faster, flatter firing guns than it is for bows.


    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 7,672Registered Users
    As for the topic rifles are in a really good place.

    Sometiles they have LOS issues when they should not have it. For example standing high on hill with cleqr LOS might say obstructed.

    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • CanuoveaCanuovea Posts: 13,123Registered Users, Moderators
    Had to edit some comments.

    Look, let us avoid comparing fellow forumers to people who believe something widely considered to be ridiculous. That can certainly be disrespectful.

    That being said, the rest of this discussion seems to be mostly above board. Carry on.
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
    -...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • PippingtonPippington Posts: 2,024Registered Users
    edited December 2018

    Why do you even post here if you have such a nihilistic outlook on it. You, as a player can and do influence the design decisions CA takes, no you're not the CEO but that does not mean you lack influence.

    CA do listen to player feedback in balancing their game, even if they move very slowly. When we're talking about the question you identified earlier of "does this unit perform in a balanced way", there's an evidence based common ground where it's at least partially possible to work out which claims have merit.

    When you move the conversation to "I don't care whether it's balanced or not, I just want it to be this way because that's my preference"... well, bully for you? Unless you can demonstrate that there's a big fraction of the playerbase out there that feels the same way, I don't see that cutting much ice with CA as far as convincing them to overhaul a pretty significant aspect of faction and unit balance goes.

    There is absolutely nothing stopping you installing (or making) a mod that e.g. doubles the DPS and price of handguns if that's the game you want to play, but it seems likely to me that the majority of players would prefer the vanilla experience where non-blackpowder factions don't see their shiny elite units and monsters just disappear in a splatter of body parts when the guns start to roar.

    Bows are better, they're more cost efficient...

    Right, so this is why crossbowmen have dominated over handgunners in Empire builds for patch after patch after patch...

    hang on a minute...



    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,929Registered Users

    Why do you even post here if you have such a nihilistic outlook on it. You, as a player can and do influence the design decisions CA takes, no you're not the CEO but that does not mean you lack influence.

    CA do listen to player feedback in balancing their game, even if they move very slowly. When we're talking about the question you identified earlier of "does this unit perform in a balanced way", there's an evidence based common ground where it's at least partially possible to work out which claims have merit.

    When you move the conversation to "I don't care whether it's balanced or not, I just want it to be this way because that's my preference"... well, bully for you? Unless you can demonstrate that there's a big fraction of the playerbase out there that feels the same way, I don't see that cutting much ice with CA as far as convincing them to overhaul a pretty significant aspect of faction and unit balance goes.

    There is absolutely nothing stopping you installing (or making) a mod that e.g. doubles the DPS and price of handguns if that's the game you want to play, but it seems likely to me that the majority of players would prefer the vanilla experience where non-blackpowder factions don't see their shiny elite units and monsters just disappear in a splatter of body parts when the guns start to roar.

    Bows are better, they're more cost efficient...

    Right, so this is why crossbowmen have dominated over handgunners in Empire builds for patch after patch after patch...

    hang on a minute...

    These bad faith arguments you keep making, make this discussion extremely frustrating. Especially giving that you are someone I respect as a part of this community.

    "don't care whether it's balanced or not, I just want it to be this way because that's my preference"."

    here for example, you are framing my opinion with a made up quote as if I do not care about balance at all and only want my way. When my actual opinion is that you can have both balance and reforms at the same time. That how it is balanced right now, is not the only way to balance something.

    "Right, so this is why crossbowmen have dominated over handgunners in Empire builds for patch after patch after patch..."

    Here, with chopped up quote, you try to change my argument from being how guns operate in the games overall meta to how they operate in relation to each other in a single faction. Which, mind you in a mirror match up with the Empire, will most likely have cross bows even at 500g and is still the exception not the rule. 160 range archers will always be a staple in match ups against the Empire.

    Additionally, it doesn't change the play style of hand gunners rather crossbows are viable or not, which lies the heart of my opinion regarding guns.


    That aside.

    "Unless you can demonstrate that there's a big fraction of the playerbase out there that feels the same way, I don't see that cutting much ice with CA as far as convincing them to overhaul a pretty significant aspect of faction and unit balance goes."

    and

    "but it seems likely to me that the majority of players would prefer the vanilla experience where non-blackpowder factions don't see their shiny elite units and monsters just disappear in a splatter of body parts when the guns start to roar."

    Lucky me, that means I only need a handful of forum members to agree with me for you to accept it as a majority opinion it seems. That said, the truth is more like, 50% of the player base has already left the game since Vcoast has released and trends show that number increasing. Which is a drop from 42k at release to 22k at the last peak. 5% of that is only 1000 players for MP. And with those players, goes your majority that knows best.

    According to Steamdb ofc

    The real question is what happens when Wh3 ends? Is 1000 players going to be sustainable when there's no future DLC and marketing for the game.

    Guns aside, that looks to me to be a pretty damning report for your conservative stance.

    Additionally where is all the uproar about all the expensive units in the game, every unit above 600g must be just absolutely devastating and not balanced at all. Hell, just yesterday I had my great swords cut though a unit of HE spears with limbs and pink mist spraying though the air in just seconds, and they were on the other side of the map! What is CA doing!


    "There is absolutely nothing stopping you installing (or making) a mod that e.g. doubles the DPS and price of handguns if that's the game you want to play"

    I guess CA can just shut down the entire forums now because because all problems, all opinions, everything is null-n-void in the face of modding. Modding is especially effective for us MP players as well.

    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • PippingtonPippington Posts: 2,024Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    I am not sure how to respond to that, it's rather long and messy. I don't think my portrayal of your position was in bad faith, you said, and I quote:

    You are looking at the issue though the lenses of balance, is it balanced (y/n.) If (y) then end of discussion, if (n) then further discuss. You can do all the test you want about how guns compete against infantry, against single targets, against armored, etc. etc. it doesn't matter.

    The people who want changes to guns aren't talking about balance(at least in that way,) they are talking about the gameplay and flavor offered by the current balance. In which all those test, all that evidence is irrelevant.

    We are having a subjective discussion regarding the vision for the game and how the current balance influences it.

    That to me reads that you acknowledge that what you're asking for is not to do with competitive balance, but rather personal preference. We all have our preferences but it's unrealistic to lambast CA for not making them real; if they tried to do that they would be pulled in a thousand different directions at once. They are the authors, their 'vision' has to take precedence. If you want to change something that's by now a pretty established pillar of how the game is balanced and seems to work pretty well as-is for keeping units and factions in equilibrium, then that's exactly the kind of thing that mods are for.

    That aside, can you sum up, concisely and quantitatively, what your problem with blackpowder units actually is and what change you prescribe to fix it?

    There are many factions with very effective archers (e.g. Greenskins, Bretonnia) that would gladly trade in all their bows to be able to buy Handgunners; I don't know if you believe that but it's true all the same. Armour is a huge deal in this game and having $600-700 missile units that punch right through it is incredibly potent. But putting that aside, since you seem to be dissatisfied with how guns compare to bows, what do you think should happen when a gunner unit gets into a static ranged fight with an archer unit?


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 1,378Registered Users

    Why do you even post here if you have such a nihilistic outlook on it. You, as a player can and do influence the design decisions CA takes, no you're not the CEO but that does not mean you lack influence.

    CA do listen to player feedback in balancing their game, even if they move very slowly. When we're talking about the question you identified earlier of "does this unit perform in a balanced way", there's an evidence based common ground where it's at least partially possible to work out which claims have merit.

    When you move the conversation to "I don't care whether it's balanced or not, I just want it to be this way because that's my preference"... well, bully for you? Unless you can demonstrate that there's a big fraction of the playerbase out there that feels the same way, I don't see that cutting much ice with CA as far as convincing them to overhaul a pretty significant aspect of faction and unit balance goes.

    There is absolutely nothing stopping you installing (or making) a mod that e.g. doubles the DPS and price of handguns if that's the game you want to play, but it seems likely to me that the majority of players would prefer the vanilla experience where non-blackpowder factions don't see their shiny elite units and monsters just disappear in a splatter of body parts when the guns start to roar.

    Bows are better, they're more cost efficient...

    Right, so this is why crossbowmen have dominated over handgunners in Empire builds for patch after patch after patch...

    hang on a minute...

    These bad faith arguments you keep making, make this discussion extremely frustrating. Especially giving that you are someone I respect as a part of this community.

    "don't care whether it's balanced or not, I just want it to be this way because that's my preference"."

    here for example, you are framing my opinion with a made up quote as if I do not care about balance at all and only want my way. When my actual opinion is that you can have both balance and reforms at the same time. That how it is balanced right now, is not the only way to balance something.

    "Right, so this is why crossbowmen have dominated over handgunners in Empire builds for patch after patch after patch..."

    Here, with chopped up quote, you try to change my argument from being how guns operate in the games overall meta to how they operate in relation to each other in a single faction. Which, mind you in a mirror match up with the Empire, will most likely have cross bows even at 500g and is still the exception not the rule. 160 range archers will always be a staple in match ups against the Empire.

    Additionally, it doesn't change the play style of hand gunners rather crossbows are viable or not, which lies the heart of my opinion regarding guns.


    That aside.

    "Unless you can demonstrate that there's a big fraction of the playerbase out there that feels the same way, I don't see that cutting much ice with CA as far as convincing them to overhaul a pretty significant aspect of faction and unit balance goes."

    and

    "but it seems likely to me that the majority of players would prefer the vanilla experience where non-blackpowder factions don't see their shiny elite units and monsters just disappear in a splatter of body parts when the guns start to roar."

    Lucky me, that means I only need a handful of forum members to agree with me for you to accept it as a majority opinion it seems. That said, the truth is more like, 50% of the player base has already left the game since Vcoast has released and trends show that number increasing. Which is a drop from 42k at release to 22k at the last peak. 5% of that is only 1000 players for MP. And with those players, goes your majority that knows best.

    According to Steamdb ofc

    The real question is what happens when Wh3 ends? Is 1000 players going to be sustainable when there's no future DLC and marketing for the game.

    Guns aside, that looks to me to be a pretty damning report for your conservative stance.

    Additionally where is all the uproar about all the expensive units in the game, every unit above 600g must be just absolutely devastating and not balanced at all. Hell, just yesterday I had my great swords cut though a unit of HE spears with limbs and pink mist spraying though the air in just seconds, and they were on the other side of the map! What is CA doing!


    "There is absolutely nothing stopping you installing (or making) a mod that e.g. doubles the DPS and price of handguns if that's the game you want to play"

    I guess CA can just shut down the entire forums now because because all problems, all opinions, everything is null-n-void in the face of modding. Modding is especially effective for us MP players as well.

    Your reasoning here is pretty weak. The reason MP has low numbers is nothing to do with handgunners, white lions, or whatever unit the commenter here think is the cause.

    Fixing MP numbers will be done when they implement matchmaking. Every other change is 2nd to that elephant in the room. The learning curve on this game is vicious, and getting stomped into the ground is what drives MP players away, pure and simple.

    Don't try and force your pet peeves into being the cause of problems, it gets no one anywhere.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,929Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    I'll get to you in a second Pip, this one is easier though.
    OrkLads said:



    Your reasoning here is pretty weak. The reason MP has low numbers is nothing to do with handgunners, white lions, or whatever unit the commenter here think is the cause. .

    The argument wasn't specifically for gun reforms with those remarks, but against the idea that a change may throw balance out of wack in a big way so the change is bad. It was a pro-reform, anti-conservative/anti-status quo argument and that's all it was.

    It is my opinion that TW:WH2 is a beta for TW:Wh3 and now is the time to experiment with such changes.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 1,378Registered Users


    That aside.

    "Unless you can demonstrate that there's a big fraction of the playerbase out there that feels the same way, I don't see that cutting much ice with CA as far as convincing them to overhaul a pretty significant aspect of faction and unit balance goes."

    and

    "but it seems likely to me that the majority of players would prefer the vanilla experience where non-blackpowder factions don't see their shiny elite units and monsters just disappear in a splatter of body parts when the guns start to roar."

    Lucky me, that means I only need a handful of forum members to agree with me for you to accept it as a majority opinion it seems. That said, the truth is more like, 50% of the player base has already left the game since Vcoast has released and trends show that number increasing. Which is a drop from 42k at release to 22k at the last peak. 5% of that is only 1000 players for MP. And with those players, goes your majority that knows best.

    According to Steamdb ofc

    The real question is what happens when Wh3 ends? Is 1000 players going to be sustainable when there's no future DLC and marketing for the game.

    Guns aside, that looks to me to be a pretty damning report for your conservative stance.

    You used the current player numbers as a good reason to support the experimental stance you favour. I actually agree about experimentation (although I disagree on guns specifically) but the justification you are using for the low player numbers is bs because the main problem is something entirely different (no matchmaking).

    Was that an easy enough read for you?
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,929Registered Users
    Sorry if i am sloppy, it is a busy time for me.


    That to me reads that you acknowledge that what you're asking for is not to do with competitive balance, but rather personal preference. We all have our preferences but it's unrealistic to lambast CA for not making them real; if they tried to do that they would be pulled in a thousand different directions at once. They are the authors, their 'vision' has to take precedence. If you want to change something that's by now a pretty established pillar of how the game is balanced and seems to work pretty well as-is for keeping units and factions in equilibrium, then that's exactly the kind of thing that mods are for.

    I do acknowledge it, but that isn't to dismiss the importance of competitive balance. Which is what I thought you were saying and why I called bad faith.

    It is very important that competitive balance is still taken into account as it creates a coherent system but it is also achievable though a number of different means and IMO should not get in the way of game play improvements. As I said above, TW:Wh2 is a beta for TW:WH3 and should be treated as such because once WH3 hits, WH2 is a dead game just like WH1.

    I understand that CA has a vision, but sometimes they can be wrong and it is our place to point it out

    Two less controversial examples:

    Lore of Life
    Dwarfs faction wide magic resist

    Both of these effect the game negatively, the former restricts large chunks of a factions roster to only be viable when lore of life is in play and visa versa, restricts what lores are viable when certain units are in play. The latter reduces large selections of units in the game as viable picks in the match up. Both of these cases, CA implementation was poor. These implementations seem neat at first but have shown to be restrictive and reductionist in practice which is a much clearer example of bad game play than guns.

    To change these two issues will be a big under taking too but IMO it should be tackled because it's issues like this that cause people to leave the game.



    That aside, can you sum up, concisely and quantitatively, what your problem with blackpowder units actually is and what change you prescribe to fix it?

    But putting that aside, since you seem to be dissatisfied with how guns compare to bows, what do you think should happen when a gunner unit gets into a static ranged fight with an archer unit?

    Ultimately yes, that is my primary problem, aside from the down grade in FX and audio quality from Shogun2.

    I would put it this way.

    My issue is that guns can not compete in the skirmish game effectively because they are easily overwhelmed by affordable low cost archers that either safely out range or out number guns. That there is little to no diminishing returns on focus firing which highly benefits spam and high trajectory missiles. That the collision box for infantry moving though friendly infantry is very strict and being a disadvantaging missiles limited by a flat trajectory.

    *by archers I don't mean HE archers just bow bois in general.

    What I think should happen?

    1v1 Hand gunners should win against bows
    1v2 Bows should win Pyrrhic victory against Hand gunners

    What changes would I like to see?

    BETTER FX AND AUDIO... THAT'S ALL WE NEED.
    looser collision boxes for skirmish units game wide.
    +5 range on long guns
    -5 range on all bows besides GS/Beast men and other short range bows
    Increase missile damage +2 (non AP)

    I would start with that and see where it leaves us.

    Ultimately I suspect these changes would still leave bows as the winner but I would rather gradually ease my way into where I want to be than jump the gun (heh heh) and cause unnecessary issues.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,929Registered Users
    OrkLads said:

    the justification you are using for the low player numbers is bs because the main problem is something entirely different (no matchmaking).

    I think MM is part of the problem but game play is just as big as a problem as MM IMO. No one sticks with a game simply because MM is good, that said there are plenty of games out there that are popular even though they have really crap MM.

    God only knows why.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,382Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    I'll respond to @Pocman here without reposting his entire reply:-

    1. Let's be clear here; I think that the most myopic view here is that balance is simply something for MP or that it should be dictated by the trends and ideas of MP. Balance isn't just about what seems viable or seemingly too good for it's price in MP matches.

    ElectorOfWurttemberg is in fact absolutely correct in posting this in a balance thread, since faction balance isn't just about making each faction viable along the lines of MP, it is significantly more about making each faction seem both distinct and perform well on its own strengths. The big flaw with MP balancing is that it places great emphasis on coubtrpicking and Rock-Paper-Scissors style of gameplay. So for example, a unit of Outriders is good simply because it acts as a source of mounted ranged AP or that a crossbow acting like a cut price longbow is fine since they're all line archers and one is cheaper than the other.

    A fundamental concept of warfare is that one must not rely on the mistakes of the enemy, but must instead be assured of their own position while deceiving the enemy. The current meta for MP perverts this by essentially focusing on unit and faction countepicking; instead of playing to their own strengths, armies are made and used while focusing on any trying to exploit the enemy's weakness.

    Therefore, we seem to have very different concepts of balance here. While you think that a balance is about being able to cost effectively exploit various weaknesses of the enemy, I believe that balance is all about each faction being able to fully and effectively utilise it's own strengths (and being sufficiently strong in those strengths to begin with).

    2. Virtually none of the changes I've asked for are particularly hard to implement. They're mostly changes to values or the addition of new unit rules; something that is an eminently easy change to make. Fixing the Outriders' repeaters for example is a matter of altering a single value.

    3. Referring to guns specifically. I don't want guns to be OP; I do however want them to be capable of being used like guns instead of acting like a worse/riskier version of AP archers. A gunpowder based army shouldn't be addressed with the same tactics as a high medieval army or a rush army. The way that gunpowder tactics are forced to work in the game is a travesty that turns them into an extremely niche pick instead of a viable core choice.

    Let's take the units you seem to think are alright:-
    1. Outriders do in fact suffer from a bad implementation. The rate of fire bug that makes them take double the time to fire has been acknowledged by the devs as being particularly difficult to fix due to their animations. Therefore, an implementation that's closest to their TT ruleset would be the way to go for this unit. It's not even a question of whether or not this should be done, since every other unit that came after them did in fact get the multishot rule. Outriders are therefore the odd one out in not getting their multishot rule and suffer due to their halved rate of fire because of a known bug and odd implementation. If the multishot rule exists, it should be given to all the units that did have it, instead of specifically excluding a single unit and giving that unit a broken alternative implementation. It's disingenuous to seek to excuse this bad deviation without first explaining why the same logic shouldn't be applied to every single other unit that has the multishot rule.

    2. Glade Guard, Crossbowmen and HE archers aren't the same units. They all have different weapons that had completely different ways of working in the rulebooks. There's no actual reason to equate them and simply make the others into worse versions of the same unit. To do so would imbalance them, since that would essentially forcibly equalise them; something that is the definition of bad balancing, since it would homogenise these different units and thus make them not play to their own strengths. You confuse the unit for the role; while all these units can be used for frontline indirect ranged support, this does not make them the same or even similar unit.

    1. Do you realise that an army "using their strengths" and an army "exploiting the enemy weaknesses" are essentially two sides of the same coin? A mongol army would use their strong points (mobility and range) to exploit the vulnerabilities of mass infantry armies. And I don't really see what crossbows or outriders have to do with your basic idea of how the game has to be balanced.


    2. Making outriders fire realistically would be difficult to implement. Ideally, they would fire 4 or 5 shots with short reloading times, then reload for a long time. I don't think that is possible in the current TW. What you ended proposing for them was simply even less accurate than the current version is (which has a rifle that fires faster than the normal ones, which is, at the end of the day, what a semi-automatic rifle does) In other words, you tried to impose your own vision on how they should be in a unit that is fine both in terms of balance and in terms of design. Outriders are, imho, better implemented than similar units like DE crossbows. They fire significantly faster (once every 10 seconds) than normal handguns (once every 13 or 14). Yeah, their reload speed is slower than initially intended due to the animations, but is also true that their damage is higher than it would be if they had that insane firing speed.


    3. You "wanting them to be used like guns" basically means redesigning a basic core mechanic of the game around your personal preference. This is not a historic title. Is a WH one. If guns were presented in a realistic way, an army of WOC would simply be smashed by them. Because in real life, a purely melee army, no matter how well armoured, would be completely obliterated by a pike and guns on. Which is the reason why purely melee armies disappeared when guns appeared. But this is Warhammer. A world where races like Orcs and WoC are supposed to compete and even beat with others races that are much more advanced in terms of techs and tactics. Guns are, by design, not supposed to be realistic.

    TWWH, like every TW war game before it, is a paper-scissor-rock game. And therefore, weapons without any real disadvantages in real life need some added.
  • PippingtonPippington Posts: 2,024Registered Users
    edited December 2018

    What I think should happen?

    1v1 Hand gunners should win against bows
    1v2 Bows should win Pyrrhic victory against Hand gunners

    What changes would I like to see

    What in your mind would be an appropriate price for a unit that performed like this? It destroys armoured elites that bows can't scratch and it trades almost 1v2 with bows in a stand-up firefight, it's got to be worth more than just +$175 over a regular crossbow unit now right?

    there is little to no diminishing returns on focus firing which highly benefits spam and high trajectory missiles.

    TW missile performance is a pretty simple physics simulation... what diminishing returns on focus fire ought there to be, and how would you implement them?


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    What I think should happen?

    1v1 Hand gunners should win against bows
    1v2 Bows should win Pyrrhic victory against Hand gunners

    What changes would I like to see

    What in your mind would be an appropriate price for a unit that performed like this? It destroys armoured elites that bows can't scratch and it trades almost 1v2 with bows in a stand-up firefight, it's got to be worth more than just +$175 over a regular crossbow unit now right?
    He's not actually all that far off from what actually happened when regiments of gunners faced off against regiments of longbows.

    A longbow can be reloaded faster, while guns are more devastating when they fire. This meant that while the bow was a superior weapon in small scale skirmishes, the relationship was reversed when it came to set piece battles where volleys had to be traded.

    The first thing you need to understand however is that you're looking at it from a paradigm on medieval warfare, where melee and cavalry were king and ranged was very much in support. Gunpowder tactics flip this relationship and made guns and artillery the main killers, while melee and cavalry were in support. If you use the same tactics against it, you should indeed lose quite badly.

    A simple way (though most certainly not the only way) of making guns trade better in this manner is through the following changes:-
    1. Increase the number of men in a unit of gunners.
    2. Increase the penetration of guns (say from very_low to low_3, or in simpler terms, a penetration of 3 for small units only).
    3. Increase the range of guns; how much though, is a question that requires some testing
    4. If guns seem OP after this is done, reduce damage as needed.

    Countering this also requires different tactics. Instead of going into too much detail about those, a simple concept behind them is; elites will die just as easily as footsoldiers, however, the guns' flat trajectories mean that these elites can be easily shielded by cheaper units; don't try to recreate the charge of the light brigade and you won't get the same results as the charge of the light brigade.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that guns have really long reload rates. If you factor in the rate of fire bug, handguns take about 14-15 seconds to fire after the first shot (as opposed to about 10 seconds or lower for bows of any kind). This means that making them waste any shots is substantially more effective than one might think.

    there is little to no diminishing returns on focus firing which highly benefits spam and high trajectory missiles.

    TW missile performance is a pretty simple physics simulation... what diminishing returns on focus fire ought there to be, and how would you implement them?
    A simple way of doing this would be to make indirect firing arcs be inaccurate compared to direct shots. When any unit fires straight, they'll be much better than if they were firing indirectly.

    Another option would be to reduce calibration distance on all weapons, or alter it for direct and indirect fire weapons.

    There's a myriad of ways in which this can be achieved, even with just stat tweaks.
  • PippingtonPippington Posts: 2,024Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    I don't want to get drawn into the history of guns vs bows, that's not a subject on which I'm well-versed (and it's one on which I'm pretty sure there's a lot of misinformation circulating online through armchair historians).
    cool_lad said:

    A simple way (though most certainly not the only way) of making guns trade better in this manner is through the following changes:-
    1. Increase the number of men in a unit of gunners.
    2. Increase the penetration of guns (say from very_low to low_3, or in simpler terms, a penetration of 3 for small units only).
    3. Increase the range of guns; how much though, is a question that requires some testing
    4. If guns seem OP after this is done, reduce damage as needed.

    This looks like a massive, unqualified buff to me. Penetration 0 -> penetration 3 = 3x damage vs close-packed units? So extrapolating from the tests I did in the other thread, 2 handgunners would rout a unit of Executioners in a single volley from that change alone. Then you increase the number of men and the range... how much were you planning reduce the damage? A factor of 3? A factor of 5?

    I could ask you the same question I asked Elector, of what you think a unit like this should cost... but instead I'll just say what I think, this looks like the blackpowder equivalent of 'katanas should cut through a man and his horse in one swing!' to me. There is no concern for balance here, this is just wanting to see units disappear in a cloud of gunsmoke. I agree that looks cool but there's more to making an enjoyable multiplayer experience than making things look cool.
    cool_lad said:

    A simple way of doing this would be to make indirect firing arcs be inaccurate compared to direct shots. When any unit fires straight, they'll be much better than if they were firing indirectly.

    Another option would be to reduce calibration distance on all weapons, or alter it for direct and indirect fire weapons.

    There's a myriad of ways in which this can be achieved, even with just stat tweaks.

    I don't see what any of that has to do with focus fire. Focus fire = when 2 or more units fire on the same target, no? What you are talking about is an alteration that would affect fire from a single unit just as much as from 2.


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

Sign In or Register to comment.