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

The 3 Priority Issues in Multiplayer

2twoto2twoto Registered Users Posts: 81
Basically, despite being fun, there are a few issues with Warhammer’s multiplayer (specifically quick battles) that prevents it from reaching its full potential. While there have been suggestions and discussion on each of these points in the past, the main purpose of this post is more to list out the top 3 priority issues and briefly present suggestions for each. Without further ado, the priority issues in Warhammer Multiplayer:

1) Draw kiting and line camping. Both of these forms of abuse have existed and proliferated throughout the whole history of Warhammer (and total war multiplayer in general, from what I understand). They arise from one simple fact: the only way to win is to wipe the entire opposing force (either by breaking them or killing them) but you don’t lose unless such happens to you. As such, one of the easiest ways to ensure that you never lose a match is to either set up in a corner with a durable build and force your enemy in, or else have a highly mobile army that cannot be caught and killed by your enemy. So long as the only way to win is to wipe out the entire opposing force, both of these tactics will continue to persist in one way or another. Even tournaments struggle with this, with attacking rules being either problematic (i.e. being forced to attack summons that you could otherwise wait out) or subject to the admin’s discretion (which is undesirable for a competitive environment due to being inconsistent between admins).

Solution: Add an alternative win condition that forces engagement and adjust maps for such. The most prominent suggestions for this have been a CP system of some kind, which already exists within game and, if properly implemented, should have almost no impact on the meta. Alongside such would have to be adjustments to multiplayer maps (notably expanding their size so that artillery could not threaten the CP from the corner/edge of the map) but doing such would solve both these issues. Even if it's not the CP system, some form of alternative win condition is necessary to fix these issues.

2) Nets, summons, AoE damage, and the like. Long story short, some spells and ability types are absolutely busted if used within the army more than once: the classic examples are bringing 3 copies of raise dead (or for that matter almost any summon spell), bring 2+ units with AoE damage effects (bonus points if those effects are different and thus stack with each other), and bringing multiple ranged nets (especially if said abilities are not WoM reliant). They are currently not limited save incidentally through unit caps, leading to abusive builds based around such. However, I don't think the way tournaments deal with this issue is correct: at least in terms of spells, most tournament rules deal with the above by limiting all spells to just being brought once (alongside other rules limiting specific types of abilities). Doing such is not only unnecessary (many spells are not oppressive even if brought in 3 copies, i.e. most buff spells) but also neuters perfectly non-abusive and viable tactics (i.e. having a back-up caster in case your primary caster gets killed).

Solution: Either nerf the offending classes of abilities/spells, or else cap those abilities/spells according to their power. Such spells and abilities should either be adjusted (nerfed) insofar as they can be taken up to 3 times without being abusive (i.e. nets turned into very strong slows, draining effects deal less damage, less charges on summons, etc), or else create new distinctions for the offending types of spells/abilities for the purpose of placing caps on those ability/spell types, according to the power of such.

3) Unit type balance. Up until this point, I’m certain most people will have agreed with what I constitute as priority issues, but I expect that such will change with this. Basically, as it has been pointed out many times on these forums, some types of units are inherently more powerful than others. Notably, SEM’s are, overall, far superior to every other unit type due to never loosing effectiveness due to damage taken, having the highest mass of any unit in the game, generally having fear and terror, benefiting the most from healing, etc. Flying or fast SEM’s are also capable of both dodging most incoming fire and cycle charging a potentially unlimited number of infantry: this has not only led to such units having the harshest caps placed on them, but tournament rule-sets further limit their ability to cycle charge if there are only singe entities left on the field. On the other end of the spectrum, melee infantry is the worst unit type in the game: whereas most other unit types can be a win condition without further rules (i.e. an archer/gun line can be a win condition, one or more SEM’s can be win conditions, cavalry can be a win condition, etc.), melee infantry cannot outside of the dwarf matchup: they’re countered by pretty much every other unit type (ranged can concave-fire to get around shields, cav and SEM’s can cycle charge them, flying units can attack from behind) and thus only serve 4 purposes: being a roadblock, enabling another unit type, swarming ranged infantry, or killing other melee infantry. I will not continue on this, as it has been discussed multiple times before, but suffice it to say that the balance between unit types is lopsided, leading to certain types being dominant while other types never reach their full potential.

Solution: Lower the turn speed, acceleration, and mass of most single entities (enough so that dodging and cycle charging are noticeably less effective but still viable). In addition, lower the health of single entities and damage on abilities/spells designed to harm single entities moderately (proportional to each other). At the same time, increase the reload time and decrease the accuracy of most ranged units marginally. Give all infantry and cavalry the ability to toggle between tight and loose formations and adjust loose formation however necessary insofar as to ensure it is disadvantageous to be in melee in such. Finally, give elite melee infantry a slight mass increase and change charge defense so that it always applies to frontal attacks if the unit is in tight formation (i.e. the only way to get around charge defense is to attack from a flank/behind or to attack while the unit is in loose formation/transitioning between formations).

Why all of this to fix the problem? Simply put, fixing single entities would in turn make ranged units more powerful (as SEM’s are currently one of the most effective tools to defeat a gun line). Without adjustments to ranged units, they would become the new dominant unit type and the problem of unit type imbalance would persist (as it is, a gun/archer line can defend itself with minimal assistance against small numbers of cav/elite infantry given proper set up and play). Thus, ranged units need to be adjusted down, as they are currently very strong just overshadowed by how powerful SE are. Allowing all infantry and cav units to enter loose formations helps mitigate ranged effectiveness, hence why the direct nerfs are marginal. The changes to elite infantry will help them against shock cav and SEM’s, two of their strongest counters (ranged being the third, but is already addressed), and changing charge defense will allow a screening unit to reposition without getting charged for free, so long as the player is paying attention. Together, these changes should make the balance between the unit type much more even.

These three issues are currently all that’s holding back the multiplayer from reaching its full potential as a legitimately competitive game in its own right (i.e. without additional rules outside of those in QB). Admittedly, there are further adjustments that could be made that would improve it further (such as better matchmaking) but fixing these fundamental issues will address the worst of the problems plaguing multiplayer currently.

Also, -2 or -3 WoM and +10 seconds duration on Command the Unliving Overcast. Please CA.

Comments

  • SarmatiansSarmatians Registered Users Posts: 3,981
    Nice write up.

    1) Drawkiting and corner camping.

    I utterly despise either but I'm not sure I've ever seen an acceptable alternative that will work within Warhammer system. With capture points, those inclined to bend the rules will simple switch to durable armies that are designed not to kill enemy but to hold a point for a very long time.

    As far corner camping, making maps a bit bigger and deployment zones a bit smaller should be enough to make corner camping unpleasant

    2) I think the best solution would be a shared cap and cooldown for nets (maybe even strong slows) and summons. So you can have a backup caster to summon zombies, but you still get the same number of summons total and both casters get cooldown as soon as either casts a summon.

    On the whole, all nets should be reworked to strong slows instead of total immobilization. That is however tied to your 3rd point, namely SEMs. If they get toned, nets should also get toned down.

    3) SEMs.

    I've spoken on this issue many times, and I absolutely hate the way they work in game right now. I'd just look to nerf their late game abuse rather than total effectiveness.

    Once they pass certain damage treshold, regardless of healing, they should lose mass, speed and CB, potentially even WS if those prove not effective enough. That way even gradual damage of SEMs over a longer period of time will have an effect, and they won't be a total win condition after their counters are weakened enough.
  • tank3487tank3487 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,723
    Shared cooldown on spells would have solved issue. Main reason why you bring one spell on multiple caster are being able to cast it faster. Shared cooldown would solve it. It is case for offensive, summon or net spells.
    You do not even need share charges, cause with much slower summoning pluses of bringing several summoners would be quite low.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,024
    I have what I think is a very simple solution to both draw-kiting AND corner camping at the same time:

    After the 20-minute is up, the AI takes over for both armies and the battle is played at fast forward speed (unless both players choose to watch it in normal speed).

    In addition, if a player goes past the 20 minute mark more often then a certain threshold, they are warned and if it continues some penalty is applied. This is just to keep players from trying to force other players to play really long battles.

    I can't see the downsides of this.

    A fast "draw-kitey" bulid is unlikely to be very good when it is controlled by AI. So someone who has such a build and does not want to engage will probably not win when the 20 min is up.

    As to the corner camping issue, I can't really see a corner camping army that would be good when the AI takes over.

    Another twist on this would be to make all units rampage at the end of 20 minutes, though that might unnecessarily punish non-melee units. Though after 20 minutes if your ranged units still have ammo left or you still have WoM left, you are probably doing something wrong anyways.
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Registered Users Posts: 3,981

    I have what I think is a very simple solution to both draw-kiting AND corner camping at the same time:

    After the 20-minute is up, the AI takes over for both armies and the battle is played at fast forward speed (unless both players choose to watch it in normal speed).

    In addition, if a player goes past the 20 minute mark more often then a certain threshold, they are warned and if it continues some penalty is applied. This is just to keep players from trying to force other players to play really long battles.

    I can't see the downsides of this.

    A fast "draw-kitey" bulid is unlikely to be very good when it is controlled by AI. So someone who has such a build and does not want to engage will probably not win when the 20 min is up.

    As to the corner camping issue, I can't really see a corner camping army that would be good when the AI takes over.

    Another twist on this would be to make all units rampage at the end of 20 minutes, though that might unnecessarily punish non-melee units. Though after 20 minutes if your ranged units still have ammo left or you still have WoM left, you are probably doing something wrong anyways.

    Imagine Beastmen army that relies on CB vs something like Dwarfs. The moment AI takes over it's a win for dwarfs, who could have camped in the forest with slayers and longbeards/ironbreakers
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,024

    I have what I think is a very simple solution to both draw-kiting AND corner camping at the same time:

    After the 20-minute is up, the AI takes over for both armies and the battle is played at fast forward speed (unless both players choose to watch it in normal speed).

    In addition, if a player goes past the 20 minute mark more often then a certain threshold, they are warned and if it continues some penalty is applied. This is just to keep players from trying to force other players to play really long battles.

    I can't see the downsides of this.

    A fast "draw-kitey" bulid is unlikely to be very good when it is controlled by AI. So someone who has such a build and does not want to engage will probably not win when the 20 min is up.

    As to the corner camping issue, I can't really see a corner camping army that would be good when the AI takes over.

    Another twist on this would be to make all units rampage at the end of 20 minutes, though that might unnecessarily punish non-melee units. Though after 20 minutes if your ranged units still have ammo left or you still have WoM left, you are probably doing something wrong anyways.

    Imagine Beastmen army that relies on CB vs something like Dwarfs. The moment AI takes over it's a win for dwarfs, who could have camped in the forest with slayers and longbeards/ironbreakers
    so what you are saying is the Dwarf player will plan to camp in forest, not fight for 20 minutes, hope that the Beastmen player does not find a way to successfully attack him for said 20 minutes. Then, the AI Dwarf will reliably beat the Beastmen player?

    Sounds like an iffy plan for the Dwarfs. AI is not very good at using it's missiles/arty. If Dwarfs have a bunch of that, they could easily get run over. If they don't and have an all melee army, the beastmen will have the flexibilty of causing damage to the Dawi before AI takes over.

    In addition, given that the beastmen player knows what the Dwarf player is doing, they can position their army in such a way that when the timer runs outs, it's AI will be in a very advantageous position to win.

    I am not saying that it will be impossible to try to cheese. Heck there might be some MU and some army build that will be an auto win.

    However, I think in the VAST majority of cases, such a system will make draw kiting / corner camping MUCH harder to pull off successfully then it is now and in addition, my solution makes absolutely ZERO difference to everyone who plays without trying to abuse. In the rare case that a legitimate battle goes on for 20 minutes, there is usually a few tattered units left on both sides. I think letting AI take over is fine in those cases. This would even solve the dreaded SE cycle charging issue that also exists.

    And this solution should be super easy to implement as well I think.
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Registered Users Posts: 3,981

    I have what I think is a very simple solution to both draw-kiting AND corner camping at the same time:

    After the 20-minute is up, the AI takes over for both armies and the battle is played at fast forward speed (unless both players choose to watch it in normal speed).

    In addition, if a player goes past the 20 minute mark more often then a certain threshold, they are warned and if it continues some penalty is applied. This is just to keep players from trying to force other players to play really long battles.

    I can't see the downsides of this.

    A fast "draw-kitey" bulid is unlikely to be very good when it is controlled by AI. So someone who has such a build and does not want to engage will probably not win when the 20 min is up.

    As to the corner camping issue, I can't really see a corner camping army that would be good when the AI takes over.

    Another twist on this would be to make all units rampage at the end of 20 minutes, though that might unnecessarily punish non-melee units. Though after 20 minutes if your ranged units still have ammo left or you still have WoM left, you are probably doing something wrong anyways.

    Imagine Beastmen army that relies on CB vs something like Dwarfs. The moment AI takes over it's a win for dwarfs, who could have camped in the forest with slayers and longbeards/ironbreakers
    so what you are saying is the Dwarf player will plan to camp in forest, not fight for 20 minutes, hope that the Beastmen player does not find a way to successfully attack him for said 20 minutes. Then, the AI Dwarf will reliably beat the Beastmen player?

    Sounds like an iffy plan for the Dwarfs. AI is not very good at using it's missiles/arty. If Dwarfs have a bunch of that, they could easily get run over. If they don't and have an all melee army, the beastmen will have the flexibilty of causing damage to the Dawi before AI takes over.

    In addition, given that the beastmen player knows what the Dwarf player is doing, they can position their army in such a way that when the timer runs outs, it's AI will be in a very advantageous position to win.

    I am not saying that it will be impossible to try to cheese. Heck there might be some MU and some army build that will be an auto win.

    However, I think in the VAST majority of cases, such a system will make draw kiting / corner camping MUCH harder to pull off successfully then it is now and in addition, my solution makes absolutely ZERO difference to everyone who plays without trying to abuse. In the rare case that a legitimate battle goes on for 20 minutes, there is usually a few tattered units left on both sides. I think letting AI take over is fine in those cases. This would even solve the dreaded SE cycle charging issue that also exists.

    And this solution should be super easy to implement as well I think.
    Why not? Hero squads with elites works against Beastmen, I know a few high level players who use those strategies. Camping in the woods makes targeting harder.

    I've seen it done vs Wood Elves as well. Unless you go with almost pure melee WE build and opt for some archers, pure melee dwarf build will outlast even WE in the forest, cause missiles will be largely wasted on trees and not optimal targets.
  • WitchbladeWitchblade Registered Users Posts: 634
    Drawkiting solutions have been discussed a few times. The best options are capture points and leadership loss for not having any attack orders in place for over a minute. Both would also solve corner camping.

    A very easy improvement to the game would also be majorly increasing the space between the deployment zone and the white lines. 200 m minimum would be a good start.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,024

    I have what I think is a very simple solution to both draw-kiting AND corner camping at the same time:

    After the 20-minute is up, the AI takes over for both armies and the battle is played at fast forward speed (unless both players choose to watch it in normal speed).

    In addition, if a player goes past the 20 minute mark more often then a certain threshold, they are warned and if it continues some penalty is applied. This is just to keep players from trying to force other players to play really long battles.

    I can't see the downsides of this.

    A fast "draw-kitey" bulid is unlikely to be very good when it is controlled by AI. So someone who has such a build and does not want to engage will probably not win when the 20 min is up.

    As to the corner camping issue, I can't really see a corner camping army that would be good when the AI takes over.

    Another twist on this would be to make all units rampage at the end of 20 minutes, though that might unnecessarily punish non-melee units. Though after 20 minutes if your ranged units still have ammo left or you still have WoM left, you are probably doing something wrong anyways.

    Imagine Beastmen army that relies on CB vs something like Dwarfs. The moment AI takes over it's a win for dwarfs, who could have camped in the forest with slayers and longbeards/ironbreakers
    so what you are saying is the Dwarf player will plan to camp in forest, not fight for 20 minutes, hope that the Beastmen player does not find a way to successfully attack him for said 20 minutes. Then, the AI Dwarf will reliably beat the Beastmen player?

    Sounds like an iffy plan for the Dwarfs. AI is not very good at using it's missiles/arty. If Dwarfs have a bunch of that, they could easily get run over. If they don't and have an all melee army, the beastmen will have the flexibilty of causing damage to the Dawi before AI takes over.

    In addition, given that the beastmen player knows what the Dwarf player is doing, they can position their army in such a way that when the timer runs outs, it's AI will be in a very advantageous position to win.

    I am not saying that it will be impossible to try to cheese. Heck there might be some MU and some army build that will be an auto win.

    However, I think in the VAST majority of cases, such a system will make draw kiting / corner camping MUCH harder to pull off successfully then it is now and in addition, my solution makes absolutely ZERO difference to everyone who plays without trying to abuse. In the rare case that a legitimate battle goes on for 20 minutes, there is usually a few tattered units left on both sides. I think letting AI take over is fine in those cases. This would even solve the dreaded SE cycle charging issue that also exists.

    And this solution should be super easy to implement as well I think.
    Why not? Hero squads with elites works against Beastmen, I know a few high level players who use those strategies. Camping in the woods makes targeting harder.

    I've seen it done vs Wood Elves as well. Unless you go with almost pure melee WE build and opt for some archers, pure melee dwarf build will outlast even WE in the forest, cause missiles will be largely wasted on trees and not optimal targets.
    I don't understand? Are you saying there are builds that you can make that will allow you to camp successfully in forest so that you can't be attacked and defeated AND such that when the AI takes over, you will have an easy win vs WE and Beastmen?
  • 2twoto2twoto Registered Users Posts: 81
    Good morning everyone! A few things to comment on:

    Nice write up.

    1) Drawkiting and corner camping.

    I utterly despise either but I'm not sure I've ever seen an acceptable alternative that will work within Warhammer system. With capture points, those inclined to bend the rules will simple switch to durable armies that are designed not to kill enemy but to hold a point for a very long time.

    Let me try to convince you of one: the system would be one CP as close to the center of the map as possible without being within/on advantageous terrain. This CP would use the CP system already in game, which is surprisingly resilient against cheesing and can be customized to fit the needs of multiplayer (i.e. not affecting the game unless one or both players are engaging in line camping/draw kiting). I'm going to link the discussion for it, just because I did a better job explaining the idea there than I will trying to re-type it here and the discussion on it helped clarify it a lot further (also, I don't want to leave a massive comment): https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/258911/proposed-solution-for-draw-kiting-and-indefinate-camping/p1

    @WojmirVonCarstein As for the AI taking control of things, I believe that is a bad idea: while it would solve draw kiting, most corner-camping armies would have the advantage under such circumstances, as the AI tends to under-utilize most mobile/cycle charging units, all of which corner campers don't use but most builds do (in fact, camping builds use units the AI is fairly competent at using: tanky infantry, artillery, and ranged infantry). Likewise, going legitimate kite builds would be unfairly affected, as an opponent could just line/corner camp the entire game and then win once the AI takes over (especially if said opponent is going a corner-camping build).

    Even ignoring all that, a mechanic that takes away control from both players to decide the game is fundamentally anti-fun: even if the AI was actually competent and could play both sides to the best of their advantage (which is not the case), the result is still that the player who wasn't draw kiting/corner camping didn't get to play the game. Instead, they got to sit there for 20 minutes while the opponent refused to engage/camped a corner then wait an additional 2-3 minutes for the AI to haphazardly use their army. Despite people's apprehension about it, a CP system allows the player to do something if their opponent decides to not engage that still gives them the satisfaction of having achieving victory themselves, whereas having the AI take over just turns the entire match into 23 minutes of doing nothing and, in the best case scenario, being told you won.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Registered Users Posts: 2,700
    I would add counter-picking and deciding half the outcome of the battle on army selection screen as the 4th. Haven't got any solid idea to fix this though.
  • josh34583josh34583 Registered Users Posts: 135

    I would add counter-picking and deciding half the outcome of the battle on army selection screen as the 4th. Haven't got any solid idea to fix this though.

    Counter picking is just part of total war. You could implement blind matches where you cant see your opponents faction, but that has been proposed for a while now and hasn't gotten a lot of steam. I think the reasoning behind it was everyone would just pick one standardized meta template for each faction. While counter picking introduced some unit variety.
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Registered Users Posts: 3,981

    I have what I think is a very simple solution to both draw-kiting AND corner camping at the same time:

    After the 20-minute is up, the AI takes over for both armies and the battle is played at fast forward speed (unless both players choose to watch it in normal speed).

    In addition, if a player goes past the 20 minute mark more often then a certain threshold, they are warned and if it continues some penalty is applied. This is just to keep players from trying to force other players to play really long battles.

    I can't see the downsides of this.

    A fast "draw-kitey" bulid is unlikely to be very good when it is controlled by AI. So someone who has such a build and does not want to engage will probably not win when the 20 min is up.

    As to the corner camping issue, I can't really see a corner camping army that would be good when the AI takes over.

    Another twist on this would be to make all units rampage at the end of 20 minutes, though that might unnecessarily punish non-melee units. Though after 20 minutes if your ranged units still have ammo left or you still have WoM left, you are probably doing something wrong anyways.

    Imagine Beastmen army that relies on CB vs something like Dwarfs. The moment AI takes over it's a win for dwarfs, who could have camped in the forest with slayers and longbeards/ironbreakers
    so what you are saying is the Dwarf player will plan to camp in forest, not fight for 20 minutes, hope that the Beastmen player does not find a way to successfully attack him for said 20 minutes. Then, the AI Dwarf will reliably beat the Beastmen player?

    Sounds like an iffy plan for the Dwarfs. AI is not very good at using it's missiles/arty. If Dwarfs have a bunch of that, they could easily get run over. If they don't and have an all melee army, the beastmen will have the flexibilty of causing damage to the Dawi before AI takes over.

    In addition, given that the beastmen player knows what the Dwarf player is doing, they can position their army in such a way that when the timer runs outs, it's AI will be in a very advantageous position to win.

    I am not saying that it will be impossible to try to cheese. Heck there might be some MU and some army build that will be an auto win.

    However, I think in the VAST majority of cases, such a system will make draw kiting / corner camping MUCH harder to pull off successfully then it is now and in addition, my solution makes absolutely ZERO difference to everyone who plays without trying to abuse. In the rare case that a legitimate battle goes on for 20 minutes, there is usually a few tattered units left on both sides. I think letting AI take over is fine in those cases. This would even solve the dreaded SE cycle charging issue that also exists.

    And this solution should be super easy to implement as well I think.
    Why not? Hero squads with elites works against Beastmen, I know a few high level players who use those strategies. Camping in the woods makes targeting harder.

    I've seen it done vs Wood Elves as well. Unless you go with almost pure melee WE build and opt for some archers, pure melee dwarf build will outlast even WE in the forest, cause missiles will be largely wasted on trees and not optimal targets.
    I don't understand? Are you saying there are builds that you can make that will allow you to camp successfully in forest so that you can't be attacked and defeated AND such that when the AI takes over, you will have an easy win vs WE and Beastmen?
    Campign armies are generally easier for AI to handle.
    2twoto said:

    Good morning everyone! A few things to comment on:

    Nice write up.

    1) Drawkiting and corner camping.

    I utterly despise either but I'm not sure I've ever seen an acceptable alternative that will work within Warhammer system. With capture points, those inclined to bend the rules will simple switch to durable armies that are designed not to kill enemy but to hold a point for a very long time.

    Let me try to convince you of one: the system would be one CP as close to the center of the map as possible without being within/on advantageous terrain. This CP would use the CP system already in game, which is surprisingly resilient against cheesing and can be customized to fit the needs of multiplayer (i.e. not affecting the game unless one or both players are engaging in line camping/draw kiting). I'm going to link the discussion for it, just because I did a better job explaining the idea there than I will trying to re-type it here and the discussion on it helped clarify it a lot further (also, I don't want to leave a massive comment): https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/258911/proposed-solution-for-draw-kiting-and-indefinate-camping/p1

    @WojmirVonCarstein As for the AI taking control of things, I believe that is a bad idea: while it would solve draw kiting, most corner-camping armies would have the advantage under such circumstances, as the AI tends to under-utilize most mobile/cycle charging units, all of which corner campers don't use but most builds do (in fact, camping builds use units the AI is fairly competent at using: tanky infantry, artillery, and ranged infantry). Likewise, going legitimate kite builds would be unfairly affected, as an opponent could just line/corner camp the entire game and then win once the AI takes over (especially if said opponent is going a corner-camping build).

    Even ignoring all that, a mechanic that takes away control from both players to decide the game is fundamentally anti-fun: even if the AI was actually competent and could play both sides to the best of their advantage (which is not the case), the result is still that the player who wasn't draw kiting/corner camping didn't get to play the game. Instead, they got to sit there for 20 minutes while the opponent refused to engage/camped a corner then wait an additional 2-3 minutes for the AI to haphazardly use their army. Despite people's apprehension about it, a CP system allows the player to do something if their opponent decides to not engage that still gives them the satisfaction of having achieving victory themselves, whereas having the AI take over just turns the entire match into 23 minutes of doing nothing and, in the best case scenario, being told you won.
    I'll check it out first.
Sign In or Register to comment.