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

Mount Removal for Internal Balance

Michael4537Michael4537 Registered Users Posts: 2,376
So I've been thinking about the "mount creep" that's been going on and decided to discuss something that's been mentioned, but not really discussed in depth so far. Forget about mount creep being lore breaking and overwhelming for other factions to deal with; it's overwhelming for lords in the same faction, making them outclassed in areas where they should be top-dogs. Or in the High Elf case, top lion :p

Case in point is Bird Teclis (AKA Birdlis or Tird). Before he received his Arcane Phoenix mount, he filled a niche within the High Elf roster, and it was a solid niche. He was the most powerful caster in the roster with some devastating bound spells, but he was fast on his horse and fragile. However, he is not the fastest thing in the game and good effort needed to be put into protecting him. Teclis was already good, and with his spells and abilities he could even through down in melee, although it was for a limited amount of time. With his potions, he could recover HP back, giving him a bit more survivability. He was in a completely different vein from his brother Tyrion who was a scary and fast duelist and pretty beastly when fighting anybody in general. They both offered different things within the roster.

Come the Warden and the Paunch, Eltharion is released and boy does he bring something new. He's a hybrid melee/caster/support lord with a flying mount! Awesome, right? Yes, but hold onto your butts because there's a "new" kid on the block and he is better in literally every single way. Birdlis. He has by far the better casting, he's better in melee, and while he lacks some of Eltharion's support his winds of magic pool is so insane that he more than makes up for the difference with the ability to cast a stupid amount of spells. All of a sudden, Teclis is a tank and melee terror that Tyrion cannot match, and he even gives Imrik on a Star Dragon a run for their money. With his insane casting, he can heal almost as much as Alarielle but is far more tanky and better in melee. Teclis, the dedicated fragile caster, is suddenly better in melee than the dedicated melee legendary lords, and is so absurdly tanky that in most battles that I've seen with him, you have to flat out ignore him and remove the rest of the army so you have the burst damage to kill him. It completely breaks the internal balance of the HE legendary lords, makes a lot of the lords irrelevant, and turns Teclis into something that, in the lore, he never was, never was intended to be, nor even should be. Same goes for Alarielle with her eagle, to a lesser extent. It makes her passable in melee and with 110 speed fast enough to outrun almost everything in the game, if not everything, so she doesn't really need protection in the air. Pretty much just have to ignore her while she prints a new Star Dragon. At least she didn't branch too far out of her role as a fragile healer and start whipping on enemies with the same skill as Tyrion.

And that's just with the HE. Wulfrik is another great example. It's pretty clear that sitting up on a mammoth contradicts the fact that he's cursed by the Chaos gods to be an in-your-face duelist, so even if it was within his character to ride a mammoth I don't think it would be allowed. But having Wulfrik on a mammoth makes the Marauder Chieftain completely irrelevant, unless you want to cut some cost but the abilities on Wulfrik are almost always worth the extra money. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw the generic lord in a MP match.

Same goes for Lokhir, but this time it's reversed. What was a chance to make a scary and good footlord that would blend infantry and go toe-to-toe with anyone who tried to goon him suddenly is just a Malekith without spells. Nothing really special or that impressive. If you want a flying lord, just take Malekith. He's better in every way, and the extra cost is worth it.

Those are just a few examples, but it's the case with most lords with mounts they shouldn't have. They lose their uniqueness when they gain a mount they shouldn't have. They ruin the uniqueness of other legendary lords when they gain a mount. Tyrion and Eltharion are just worse versions of Tird at this point, and that should not be the case. Each character offers something different, but by giving everyone a mount everyone starts to offer the same thing. Please CA. Remove some mounts and stop adding mounts to lords who shouldn't have them and usually don't even need them.
«1

Comments

  • mightygloinmightygloin Registered Users Posts: 3,023
    Couldn't have said it better myself. They literally kill the characters by slapping nonsense mounts on them and devalue others as well.

    It would be nice if they thought about it a bit about before making such changes. What's worse, they seem to give zero fuks about criticism. TT? Lore? Or even gameplay reasons? Who cares. Pecklis is going to be helpful towards selling more DLCs.
  • GeorgeTrumanGeorgeTruman Registered Users Posts: 52
    I think that the bigger problem that is being overlooked is that these characters being given mounts is percieved as a strict upgrade.

    Footlords are super unimpactful in the game and lords who are stuck on foot who don't provide insane magic like vlad can almost seem like a waste.

    You say that in your post Lokhir with his dragon is just a worse Malekith with no spells, but without his dragon he is way way worse. Worse in melee, mobility, and obviously lacking in magic.

    In my opinion, if they don't want to change the functionality of footlords, they might consider altering the price of mounts. I remember in the proving grounds beta they attempted this and it was almost not worth mounting characters in some cases. I specifially remember the skink priest's stegadon mount costing considerably more than an ancient stegadon, something like 800 or 900 gold per turn.

    As far as multiplayer goes, if the mount seems too powerful, then it's either undercosted, or its a problem with the players' perception.

    Also an aside, in a vacuum Teclis on his mount gets absolutely rocked by Tyrion.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,335

    I think that the bigger problem that is being overlooked is that these characters being given mounts is percieved as a strict upgrade.

    Because they are, especially flying monster mounts. Alarielle became absolutely toxic on her pigeon and so her healing abilities were nerfed in reaction and still she overshadowed practically all other HE LLs.

    CA took the lazy route by just handing out more mounts instead of nerfing flying monsters or removing mounts that have proven to be problematic.

  • Michael4537Michael4537 Registered Users Posts: 2,376

    Footlords are super unimpactful in the game and lords who are stuck on foot who don't provide insane magic like vlad can almost seem like a waste.

    You say that in your post Lokhir with his dragon is just a worse Malekith with no spells, but without his dragon he is way way worse. Worse in melee, mobility, and obviously lacking in magic.

    In my opinion, if they don't want to change the functionality of footlords, they might consider altering the price of mounts. I remember in the proving grounds beta they attempted this and it was almost not worth mounting characters in some cases. I specifially remember the skink priest's stegadon mount costing considerably more than an ancient stegadon, something like 800 or 900 gold per turn.

    Also an aside, in a vacuum Teclis on his mount gets absolutely rocked by Tyrion.

    Foot lords really need to be fixed, yeah. Might be the only way the mounts get changed, which would knock out two birds with one stone (pun highly intended). I don't know if they just need to be made cheaper or given more mass or more MD to make up for the lack of mobility or what, but something's gotta change for this to work.

    Just in a straight up fight? Because I'd imagine that if Teclis could fall back when his spells wear off and pop one of his healing potions he could beat Tyrion. The danger of Teclis isn't so much that you can't deal damage, it's that he'll just fall back and heal it all off in no time, essentially giving him twice the HP.
  • peabodyestatepeabodyestate Registered Users Posts: 313
    I only ever modded once, to negate amber effects, i didn't like it. I would happily consider my second mod being one that takes content away: mounts for the masses cannot work. I applaud the op.
  • Ingr8Ingr8 Registered Users Posts: 1,129
    *YAWNNNNNN*

    Yet another gripe on the same line as loads of previous threads...

    I'm starting to think that some of these are being posted by the same person with multiple accounts!
    Dreaming of mighty Lumbria

  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,081

    Foot lords really need to be fixed, yeah. Might be the only way the mounts get changed, which would knock out two birds with one stone (pun highly intended). I don't know if they just need to be made cheaper or given more mass or more MD to make up for the lack of mobility or what, but something's gotta change for this to work.

    CA could give all foot lords a charge defence trait but beside that no much could be done, malekith was going to outclass lokhir no matter what, might makes right philosophy is strong in the dark elves society, and malekith needs to be the strongest dark elf to keep his throne, and he also has a dragon, so no contest.
  • epic_159733930042E4mPIC5epic_159733930042E4mPIC5 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 36
    edited June 11
    Yes, I totally agree about your point of view. We need more foot lords for gameplay and lore reasons. Wulfric, Lokhir like, Aranessa, Cylstra, Luthor Harkon, Thehauin, ... Tehanuin (yes I wrote it wrong, but you know the prophet lizardman). I remember it was not a problem in WH1 to have a lot of footlords.

  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,932
    edited June 11
    The lack of fidelity to the tabletop regarding mounts is excessive. Even crab mounts were shoehorned into Vampire Coast and they look dumb as hell.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,081

    The lack of fidelity to the tabletop regarding mounts is excessive. Even crab mounts were shoehorned into Vampire Coast and they look dumb as hell.

    Cylostra looks the most dump on a Mount, because it make her lose her Ethereal Trait.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Registered Users Posts: 3,023

    The lack of fidelity to the tabletop regarding mounts is excessive. Even crab mounts were shoehorned into Vampire Coast and they look dumb as hell.

    Wonder whose idea it was to glue peglegged Aranessa on some crab.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,883
    Give them bodyguards if you want to remove monsters. Foot lords will never work otherwise.
  • Lord_DistamorfinLord_Distamorfin Registered Users Posts: 1,074

    The lack of fidelity to the tabletop regarding mounts is excessive. Even crab mounts were shoehorned into Vampire Coast and they look dumb as hell.

    Wonder whose idea it was to glue peglegged Aranessa on some crab.
    Better question: Whose idea was it to add Araness to an undead faction?
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 2,621
    edited June 11

    Yes, I totally agree about your point of view. We need more foot lords for gameplay and lore reasons. Wulfric, Lokhir like, Aranessa, Cylstra, Luthor Harkon, Thehauin, ... Tehanuin (yes I wrote it wrong, but you know the prophet lizardman). I remember it was not a problem in WH1 to have a lot of footlords.

    Cylostra without her Crab mount has basically nothing going for her, Lore of the Deep isn't that strong nor is she an amazing caster.

    She's trash not on her mount.

    Ultimately I'm fine with removing mounts, even Cylostras but it should be done as a full pre-and-post mount removal balance pass on all LLs (Khatep without his would be hilariously unplayable for his campaign.)

    The lack of fidelity to the tabletop regarding mounts is excessive. Even crab mounts were shoehorned into Vampire Coast and they look dumb as hell.

    Wonder whose idea it was to glue peglegged Aranessa on some crab.
    Better question: Whose idea was it to add Araness to an undead faction?
    Cause its canon now, straight from GW, that her daddy issues are so bad she'll even use undead minions.
  • Michael4537Michael4537 Registered Users Posts: 2,376
    Amonkhet said:

    Yes, I totally agree about your point of view. We need more foot lords for gameplay and lore reasons. Wulfric, Lokhir like, Aranessa, Cylstra, Luthor Harkon, Thehauin, ... Tehanuin (yes I wrote it wrong, but you know the prophet lizardman). I remember it was not a problem in WH1 to have a lot of footlords.

    Cylostra without her Crab mount has basically nothing going for her, Lore of the Deep isn't that strong nor is she an amazing caster.
    She is ethereal and can summon ghost cavalry.
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 2,621

    Amonkhet said:

    Yes, I totally agree about your point of view. We need more foot lords for gameplay and lore reasons. Wulfric, Lokhir like, Aranessa, Cylstra, Luthor Harkon, Thehauin, ... Tehanuin (yes I wrote it wrong, but you know the prophet lizardman). I remember it was not a problem in WH1 to have a lot of footlords.

    Cylostra without her Crab mount has basically nothing going for her, Lore of the Deep isn't that strong nor is she an amazing caster.
    She is ethereal and can summon ghost cavalry.
    She can. Ethereal is a massive weakness if the enemy brings the slightest bit of magic though and given the powerhouse factions of the campaign currently abuse a lot of magic; that ain't great.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,692
    Amonkhet said:

    Yes, I totally agree about your point of view. We need more foot lords for gameplay and lore reasons. Wulfric, Lokhir like, Aranessa, Cylstra, Luthor Harkon, Thehauin, ... Tehanuin (yes I wrote it wrong, but you know the prophet lizardman). I remember it was not a problem in WH1 to have a lot of footlords.

    Cylostra without her Crab mount has basically nothing going for her, Lore of the Deep isn't that strong nor is she an amazing caster.

    She's trash not on her mount.

    Ultimately I'm fine with removing mounts, even Cylostras but it should be done as a full pre-and-post mount removal balance pass on all LLs (Khatep without his would be hilariously unplayable for his campaign.)

    The lack of fidelity to the tabletop regarding mounts is excessive. Even crab mounts were shoehorned into Vampire Coast and they look dumb as hell.

    Wonder whose idea it was to glue peglegged Aranessa on some crab.
    Better question: Whose idea was it to add Araness to an undead faction?
    Cause its canon now, straight from GW, that her daddy issues are so bad she'll even use undead minions.
    is it? Iirc TW WH is still considered a separate continuity... do you have anything official from GW on that? And No. Andy Halls comment in regards of Aranessa's Role in the game does not count.
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN! TOTAL WAR TROY FOR ONE YEAR EXCLUSIVELY ON THE EPIC GAMES STORE!"

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • EthorinEthorin Registered Users Posts: 286
    IMO, the mount accentuates the differences between Tyrion and Teclis, and I think you totally ignore what ACTUALLY makes Eltharion special when you say "hybrid lord with a flying mount".

    Right now Teclis has a single factionwide buff on himself(not his faction), it's not a bad buff per se, but it's not unique. Extra mage Capacity and recruit levels is nice, as is being able to recruit them from anywhere, but you do get similar effect from building the mage building, that it stacks with that is helpful but not exactly as good as -2 WoM cost on every spell factionwide.

    Tyrion by contrast, has a number of factionwide eco bonuses and lots of ways to buff an army. Being a strong duelist is, well, honestly, it's the least notable part of him IMO. You can make any generic lord a crazy duelist if you want to.

    Eltharion is VERY MUCH, "Everything you want in a High Elf General", Unending Volley is very strong, Grim Discipline and Expert Charge defence for your whole army is, IMO, better than Teclis being good at magic. That he is ALSO a solid combatant and a decent caster is just icing on the cake. Oh yeah, and Helm of Yvresse lets your ranged line just not care about being flanked because you can shoo the flankers away without suffering any losses if you pay attention.

    And honestly, I think there's a decent argument to be made that Archmages are better than Teclis in campaign these days. Net's with Kindleflame is nice and all, but, well, it's not that hard to combo two mages when one of them is an Archmage to pull off the same thing. And, if you do it that way, you can actually do a lot more than "slight buff to Sister's damage". Net+Kindleflame with a Flamestorm or Burning Head is quite a bit scarier IMO.
  • Odysseus95Odysseus95 Registered Users Posts: 175
    edited June 11
    OP, I completely agree with you. Sadly, no matter how much we give valid arguments against this trend of making lords mounted mashers and even going so far as to make said lord's unique identity superfluous, it's just not going to happen. I don't think CA remotely cares to make a distinction between singleplayer and multiplayer. The best hope we might have would be for someone in the modding community make a rebalancing/more true to lore hybrid multiplayer mod. Maybe in the later cycle of the trilogy, when patches don't break mods constantly? We shall see.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,335

    OP, I completely agree with you. Sadly, no matter how much we give valid arguments against this trend of making lords mounted mashers and even going so far as to make said lord's unique identity superfluous, it's just not going to happen. I don't think CA remotely cares to make a distinction between singleplayer and multiplayer. The best hope someone would have would be to have someone in the modding community make a rebalancing/more true to lore hybrid multiplayer mod. Maybe in the later cycle of the trilogy, when patches don't break mods constantly, maybe? We shall see.

    Why are people so convinced nothing will be changed about this?

    Modding is irrelevant because MP is negatively affected too.

    The stupid mounts need to go.

  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,081
    Amonkhet said:

    The lack of fidelity to the tabletop regarding mounts is excessive. Even crab mounts were shoehorned into Vampire Coast and they look dumb as hell.

    Wonder whose idea it was to glue peglegged Aranessa on some crab.
    Better question: Whose idea was it to add Araness to an undead faction?
    Cause its canon now, straight from GW, that her daddy issues are so bad she'll even use undead minions.
    She also let Undead overrun Sartosa on turn 1, so CA would not have to give Sartosa a proper roster.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 8,095

    Amonkhet said:

    Yes, I totally agree about your point of view. We need more foot lords for gameplay and lore reasons. Wulfric, Lokhir like, Aranessa, Cylstra, Luthor Harkon, Thehauin, ... Tehanuin (yes I wrote it wrong, but you know the prophet lizardman). I remember it was not a problem in WH1 to have a lot of footlords.

    Cylostra without her Crab mount has basically nothing going for her, Lore of the Deep isn't that strong nor is she an amazing caster.

    She's trash not on her mount.

    Ultimately I'm fine with removing mounts, even Cylostras but it should be done as a full pre-and-post mount removal balance pass on all LLs (Khatep without his would be hilariously unplayable for his campaign.)

    The lack of fidelity to the tabletop regarding mounts is excessive. Even crab mounts were shoehorned into Vampire Coast and they look dumb as hell.

    Wonder whose idea it was to glue peglegged Aranessa on some crab.
    Better question: Whose idea was it to add Araness to an undead faction?
    Cause its canon now, straight from GW, that her daddy issues are so bad she'll even use undead minions.
    is it? Iirc TW WH is still considered a separate continuity... do you have anything official from GW on that? And No. Andy Halls comment in regards of Aranessa's Role in the game does not count.
    Isn't it pretty much confirmed that TWW2 is a parallel universe? I don't recall the Vortex being disrupted by a skaven rocket anywhere in the canon timeline, although if you look closely you can see where it could have happened if the Lizardmen hadn't had the prophecy that allowed them to make a pre-emptive strike.
  • floskanfloskan Registered Users Posts: 75

    OP, I completely agree with you. Sadly, no matter how much we give valid arguments against this trend of making lords mounted mashers and even going so far as to make said lord's unique identity superfluous, it's just not going to happen. I don't think CA remotely cares to make a distinction between singleplayer and multiplayer. The best hope someone would have would be to have someone in the modding community make a rebalancing/more true to lore hybrid multiplayer mod. Maybe in the later cycle of the trilogy, when patches don't break mods constantly, maybe? We shall see.

    Why are people so convinced nothing will be changed about this?

    Modding is irrelevant because MP is negatively affected too.

    The stupid mounts need to go.
    Almost every MP-match i watched with bird teclis in it ended up with HE losing since he's so costly. Turin mentioned him on a horse is still viable if you want to afford an army as well. I'm also convinced it won't be changed, because that's how it is.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Registered Users Posts: 3,023
    Xenos7 said:

    Give them bodyguards if you want to remove monsters. Foot lords will never work otherwise.

    Depends on the lord really. Can't agree on a universal solution for every footlord. An Empire General and Dwarf Slayer are wildly different.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/267367/so-when-will-this-get-fixed-another-footlord-thread#latest
  • Barrel02Barrel02 Registered Users Posts: 92
    Best example for terribly included mounts was ironically their own creation. Eventhough Cylostra is not restricted by any lore or fluff regarding her mount choices, giving her a giant crab was really unfitting. It takes away one of her core elements: being Ethereal. What could they have done differently? Everything. Keep her on foot or give her a spectral Bretonnian steed. Especially with her Bretonnian background they had more than enough unique stuff that Vampire Coast usually does not have access to, but no let's give her a generic giant crab. Or my favorite idea: give her a Mortis Engine. Dragged by spectral Bretonnian horses just like her summon and manned by spectral Squires instead of Cairn Wraiths. And not just flavor-wise it would have been great, it would also have given the Vampire Coast unique access to a Mortis Engine effect, making her much more of a pick to be considered.

    But enough ranting about past ideas. If this continues every LL will need some kind of monstrous mount to compete (or be some kind of monster itself). I know it might seem impressive and cool at first especially for new players to see LL X riding on some kind of massive monster but it really hurts the game over all and restricts future lord creation as a big mount will be a must for the lord to not get dropped by the players immediately.
  • OperativOperativ Registered Users Posts: 31
    I vote for unmounting characters who aren't really known to own a mount (books, sources...).

    I can enjoy Vlad the mountless, so I'm sure I'd be able to enjoy many other mountless characters.
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 11,350
    Xenos7 said:

    Give them bodyguards if you want to remove monsters. Foot lords will never work otherwise.

    What nonsense did I just read here?
  • PilgriflouzePilgriflouze Registered Users Posts: 3
    NO please CA dont nerf mount choices. Add MORE thx.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,335
    floskan said:

    OP, I completely agree with you. Sadly, no matter how much we give valid arguments against this trend of making lords mounted mashers and even going so far as to make said lord's unique identity superfluous, it's just not going to happen. I don't think CA remotely cares to make a distinction between singleplayer and multiplayer. The best hope someone would have would be to have someone in the modding community make a rebalancing/more true to lore hybrid multiplayer mod. Maybe in the later cycle of the trilogy, when patches don't break mods constantly, maybe? We shall see.

    Why are people so convinced nothing will be changed about this?

    Modding is irrelevant because MP is negatively affected too.

    The stupid mounts need to go.
    Almost every MP-match i watched with bird teclis in it ended up with HE losing since he's so costly. Turin mentioned him on a horse is still viable if you want to afford an army as well. I'm also convinced it won't be changed, because that's how it is.
    Missed the point completely and o yeah, anecdotal evidence. Can bring up matches where that guy was brought and HE won, so what then?

    I brought up several reasons why the parrot has to go and "HE are invincible with him on it" was never one of the reasons.

  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,081
    Barrel02 said:

    Best example for terribly included mounts was ironically their own creation. Eventhough Cylostra is not restricted by any lore or fluff regarding her mount choices, giving her a giant crab was really unfitting. It takes away one of her core elements: being Ethereal. What could they have done differently? Everything. Keep her on foot or give her a spectral Bretonnian steed. Especially with her Bretonnian background they had more than enough unique stuff that Vampire Coast usually does not have access to, but no let's give her a generic giant crab. Or my favorite idea: give her a Mortis Engine. Dragged by spectral Bretonnian horses just like her summon and manned by spectral Squires instead of Cairn Wraiths. And not just flavor-wise it would have been great, it would also have given the Vampire Coast unique access to a Mortis Engine effect, making her much more of a pick to be considered.

    Yea a Mortis Engine could have been more fitting for Cylostra than a Rotting Leviathan.
Sign In or Register to comment.