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

Please stop trying to balance the game around multiplayer complaints

JyrgunkarrdJyrgunkarrd Registered Users Posts: 64
For starters, it is impossible to actually balance a game like this for multiplayer (without killing the identity of each unit / faction, anyway); there are too many variables. Something will always come out as the best way to win, and this will be 'the meta', and if you try to fix this because of outcry over 'the meta' you'll just create a new best way to win and a new meta. There's no end to it.

The changes are also always reactionary and based on incredibly spurious data. Most players don't actually test the meta; they just blindly buy-in. Older strategy games demonstrate the folly of this - new metas would crop-up on a regular basis in Brood War even though the game wasn't regularly patched for balance. People were just wrong about what was good or bad and someone would prove it every now and then through innovative gameplay (see: Protoss suddenly having favorable match-ups against Zerg when amateur players were shown by a good player how to use DTs and Corsairs).

Even if the task wasn't impossible, the multiplayer community largely has no competency at determining what is good or bad in the game and therefore they shouldn't be listened to.

On top of that, the multiplayer space isn't neutral. Players have a 'main' that they play with and they want their main to be the most competitive, so they advocate for 'balance' changes that favor their main. This is why just about every single balance debate devolves into fake test results, context-free complaints about how overloaded or underloaded a given unit is and, of course, talk about how the meta proves that [X] or [Y] unit needs to be changed. No overarching design philosophy, no interesting take on what the changes would mean for the narrative flavor of the unit - just calls for nerfs with spreadsheet pseudo-evidence.

The MP community is microscopic compared to the single player community, they cannot actually be satisfied because achieving balance will never happen, they don't want the game to be balanced (they just want their main race to be the best) and the changes implemented due to MP complaints are slowly making the game ever more boring. Units have anything interesting either removed or made so insignificant that it may as well not exist, because the moment a unit becomes interesting it is targeted for complaints.

I don't want the game to reach the point where every single monster is the same, every single line infantry unit is the same, every single archer is the same, etc, because a handful of players won't stop complaining about the stuff that makes units distinct.
«134

Comments

  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited February 13



    The MP community is microscopic compared to the single player community

    Wrong way of looking at it. In terms of size of different communities the game goes:

    SP Community > Multiplayer Community > SP Community that cares about the minor stat tweaks etc needed to balance MP while keeping the factions unique.

    Players like yourself are actually in an extreme minority but claim to talk for the full SP community even though most of them have no issues at all with how factions/rosters are balanced for MP. In terms of players who care about roster balance etc, the MP community far exceeds the SP community.

  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,799
    @OP

    You are aware that units beeing balanced for MP means that they will be more useful for campaign because there are no buffs that distort the performance enough to make the unit somewhat valid?


    If you think units are weakened by MP-Balance then you should suggest skills and abilities for campaign to address it for campaign.
  • JyrgunkarrdJyrgunkarrd Registered Users Posts: 64
    Vampire Counts have been so badly nerfed by multiplayer changes that the VC factions in single player are no longer competitive. They usually die within 50~ turns, and are never a factor unless human controlled.

    That's just one example.

    I doubt I'm in a minority position thinking this is a bad direction for the game, killing the narrative immersion.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,799

    Vampire Counts have been so badly nerfed by multiplayer changes that the VC factions in single player are no longer competitive. They usually die within 50~ turns, and are never a factor unless human controlled.

    That's just one example.

    I doubt I'm in a minority position thinking this is a bad direction for the game, killing the narrative immersion.

    That´s not only because of the units but also because VC-mechanics are quiet old and dusty.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,799
    But yeah, Vampires could use a face-lift.
  • JyrgunkarrdJyrgunkarrd Registered Users Posts: 64
    They are under-statted due to multiplayer complaints. That's not the mechanics being too old - they just aren't competitive in auto-resolve battles because the MP community continually insisted on adjusting their stats downward.

    And again, just one example.

    Trolls used to be an interesting unit with specific vulnerabilities and low leadership - difficult to make cost effective. Now they're just another big thug because the MP community kept insisting they were too weak.

    Arachnarok spiders are now a shadow of their former selves, as are Demigryph Knights. The most elite cavalry in the entire Empire, now just another piece of elite cavalry with a different skin.

    Incredibly lame, IMHO.

  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,799

    They are under-statted due to multiplayer complaints. That's not the mechanics being too old - they just aren't competitive in auto-resolve battles because the MP community continually insisted on adjusting their stats downward.

    And again, just one example.

    Trolls used to be an interesting unit with specific vulnerabilities and low leadership - difficult to make cost effective. Now they're just another big thug because the MP community kept insisting they were too weak.

    Arachnarok spiders are now a shadow of their former selves, as are Demigryph Knights. The most elite cavalry in the entire Empire, now just another piece of elite cavalry with a different skin.

    Incredibly lame, IMHO.

    How are they weak?
  • JyrgunkarrdJyrgunkarrd Registered Users Posts: 64
    TeNoSkill said:

    They are under-statted due to multiplayer complaints. That's not the mechanics being too old - they just aren't competitive in auto-resolve battles because the MP community continually insisted on adjusting their stats downward.

    And again, just one example.

    Trolls used to be an interesting unit with specific vulnerabilities and low leadership - difficult to make cost effective. Now they're just another big thug because the MP community kept insisting they were too weak.

    Arachnarok spiders are now a shadow of their former selves, as are Demigryph Knights. The most elite cavalry in the entire Empire, now just another piece of elite cavalry with a different skin.

    Incredibly lame, IMHO.

    How are they weak?
    Their stats across the board are just too low.

    Specific example if you like - Grave Guard have 24 melee attack, almost 10 less (before any other factors, like the Empire's anti-vampire technology - which would be awesome if not for the already existing stat disparity) than Empire Swordsmen. In a spreadsheet auto-combat (which is what happens between AI players in the campaign), the VC just aren't winning those fights ever.

    And the only reason the stats are so terrible is that the VC received round after round after round of stat reductions because the MP community was adamant that VC was 'the meta' and needed to be 'nerfed'.

    And the same thing happened with anything else that was 'the meta'.

    It's total nonsense. Warhammer isn't for you if you believe that everything needs to be balanced and samey.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 471

    TeNoSkill said:

    They are under-statted due to multiplayer complaints. That's not the mechanics being too old - they just aren't competitive in auto-resolve battles because the MP community continually insisted on adjusting their stats downward.

    And again, just one example.

    Trolls used to be an interesting unit with specific vulnerabilities and low leadership - difficult to make cost effective. Now they're just another big thug because the MP community kept insisting they were too weak.

    Arachnarok spiders are now a shadow of their former selves, as are Demigryph Knights. The most elite cavalry in the entire Empire, now just another piece of elite cavalry with a different skin.

    Incredibly lame, IMHO.

    How are they weak?
    Their stats across the board are just too low.

    Specific example if you like - Grave Guard have 24 melee attack, almost 10 less (before any other factors, like the Empire's anti-vampire technology - which would be awesome if not for the already existing stat disparity) than Empire Swordsmen. In a spreadsheet auto-combat (which is what happens between AI players in the campaign), the VC just aren't winning those fights ever.

    And the only reason the stats are so terrible is that the VC received round after round after round of stat reductions because the MP community was adamant that VC was 'the meta' and needed to be 'nerfed'.

    And the same thing happened with anything else that was 'the meta'.

    It's total nonsense. Warhammer isn't for you if you believe that everything needs to be balanced and samey.
    I'm not going to rebutt this point by point, it is easy to look at one unit compared to another and say this or that is too strong. But when you need to balance 14 factions (soon to be 21) then some units will always be up and others will always be down. Just how it goes and trying to fix that is what will homogenise rosters, not balancing off MP.

    In regards to your specific complaint (VC never do well in campaign) there is a great mod called "Unnatural Selection" by JADAWIN. Here is the official description:

    With this mod you can apply a buff or debuff to almost every faction in the game. This will increase or decrease their chances to do well in that campaign against the other AI. If you for example saw the Dwarfs win against the Greenskins for three campaigns in a row and are tired of seeing beards everywhere, give the Dwarfs a debuff and the Greenskins a buff, and you'll very likely see a lot more green.

    There are six debuff/buff levels, -3 to 3. Weakening a faction will slightly reduce their tax income and increase their unit upkeep relative to the other AI. Buffing a faction will increase tax income and slightly reduce upkeep, and it will also give all units belonging to that AI a boost to their stats. This increases the autoresolve chances of that faction and makes them win more battles against other AI.

    Note that CA have built in some hard-coded cheating so that some AI factions will always lose against some others, even if they have a far superior army and the strongest buff. That is CA's way to ensure that major factions usually win against minor factions. It's not entirely clear how it works and what triggers the cheats, but it's nothing this mod or any other can stop from happening.


    There is also a randomiser mod you can add into the mix with it so that you don't need to choose which factions will rise/fall but can let it be randomly decided.

    Seems to be exactly what you are after, I hope you will consider using it instead of baselessly blaming MP players for the games issues.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 11,043
    edited February 14
    eh that's why you have some of the best support units in game, corpse carts ,corpse cart unholy load stone, mortis engine . its part of the identity of counts.

    you're complaining every thing become samey than complaining why grave guard has lower stats than other units in game , pick one.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • innerpinnerp Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 982
    i dont agree on everything you say, i dont think mp issues should be ignored. but i do think that they should either be balanced differently, or at first balanced through cost. the testing for minor stat changes is usually useful (although there are still some inexplicable changes, like kroxigars getting nerfed in multiple patches since game release when they were considered underwhelming in SP already).



    The MP community is microscopic compared to the single player community

    Wrong way of looking at it. In terms of size of different communities the game goes:

    SP Community > Multiplayer Community > SP Community that cares about the minor stat tweaks etc needed to balance MP while keeping the factions unique.

    Players like yourself are actually in an extreme minority but claim to talk for the full SP community even though most of them have no issues at all with how factions/rosters are balanced for MP. In terms of players who care about roster balance etc, the MP community far exceeds the SP community.

    minor stat tweaks are not the ones that usually get complained about, but then you get things like depth guard or ancient sali which is strictly worse than a stegadon bolt thrower in most situations now, or even the very sorry state that is the lore of death. then there are some of the failed ideas propositioned on this forum in recent times, like charges for warpgrinder abilities because they are so OP in mp for some reason even though they become a dud unit after those charges are gone. silverin guards getting the depth guard treatment, dreaded 13th being made as expensive as an OC wind of death (lol), and nerfing skavenslaves (another lol).

    thats not to say there are no good ideas or changes, such as the charge defence on SEM and knockdown changes, or even the healing cap which i didnt mind in the end once lore of life got added (although i still think counts should be able to increase their cap in campaign somehow). but you can find as many bad ideas get backed here as good ones, and they are alot more dramatic in what they want to change than a -1 or 2 stat tweak.

    quite opposite, its pointless to balance it for SP since you have things that change how each unit plays drastically such as the difficulty you chose to play along with hero skills trees and other various upgrades.

    Also MP community is quite large, in sure more people play single player than MP but its only about 4 times more, and not 20 like some people that refuse to do some research seem to think.

    As for the last part, well noone wants that, majority of MP and SP folks want the game to be balanced along with individual factions be balanced, but hey if you really want OP stuff than you can just mode it which is an option for SP and not MP.

    not even CA believes that figure, if they did the mp lobby wouldnt look like something from 2001, and new players would not get matched up vs veterans, or people with dlc being matched against people without (pay to win). those are just the basics behind a successful mp game.

    at the end of the day, the balancing has to be different because you are trying to balance a 1v1 deathmatch where you can lose your entire army for the sake of 1 victory vs needing to fight and survive multiple and usually consecutive battles. just looking at the recent proposed changes to ranged units should show you how differently mp and sp can see balance differently.
  • Unruly_MarmiteUnruly_Marmite Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 187

    TeNoSkill said:

    They are under-statted due to multiplayer complaints. That's not the mechanics being too old - they just aren't competitive in auto-resolve battles because the MP community continually insisted on adjusting their stats downward.

    And again, just one example.

    Trolls used to be an interesting unit with specific vulnerabilities and low leadership - difficult to make cost effective. Now they're just another big thug because the MP community kept insisting they were too weak.

    Arachnarok spiders are now a shadow of their former selves, as are Demigryph Knights. The most elite cavalry in the entire Empire, now just another piece of elite cavalry with a different skin.

    Incredibly lame, IMHO.

    How are they weak?
    Their stats across the board are just too low.

    Specific example if you like - Grave Guard have 24 melee attack, almost 10 less (before any other factors, like the Empire's anti-vampire technology - which would be awesome if not for the already existing stat disparity) than Empire Swordsmen. In a spreadsheet auto-combat (which is what happens between AI players in the campaign), the VC just aren't winning those fights ever.

    And the only reason the stats are so terrible is that the VC received round after round after round of stat reductions because the MP community was adamant that VC was 'the meta' and needed to be 'nerfed'.

    And the same thing happened with anything else that was 'the meta'.

    It's total nonsense. Warhammer isn't for you if you believe that everything needs to be balanced and samey.
    In Turins 4th September 2016 video Grave Guard have 22 Melee Attack and 36 Defence. You might wanna find another hill to die on, because your rhetoric really isn't holding up. Vampire Counts have had worse stats from the very start because they were the only faction with healing on release, and they haven't been mass complained about here since the days of unlimited healing- and even then, that wasn't a nerf that was suggested by the community. But sure, continue thinking that Multiplayer is some bogeyman and not that CA nerf things however they like based on their stats.

    I mean seriously. Just look at the threads over the past few days- the general consensus in one of them is that Silverin Guard were nerfed too hard! This argument never ceases to be ridiculous- and I play solely single player, so don't think I'm an MP player trying to shuck responsibility.
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 4,347
    TeNoSkill said:

    But yeah, Vampires could use a face-lift.

    They need a lord pack and a proper rework.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870
    The balancing would be way more strict if they were to balance around SP issues since those are way more out of whack than anything in MP.

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,544
    not even CA believes that figure, if they did the mp lobby wouldnt look like something from 2001, and new players would not get matched up vs veterans, or people with dlc being matched against people without (pay to win). those are just the basics behind a successful mp game.

    at the end of the day, the balancing has to be different because you are trying to balance a 1v1 deathmatch where you can lose your entire army for the sake of 1 victory vs needing to fight and survive multiple and usually consecutive battles. just looking at the recent proposed changes to ranged units should show you how differently mp and sp can see balance differently.


    You can do some research and you will see i'm rite, i wrote the stats up few times just look it up, most of the data is tehre on steam.

    As for CA well MP experience has been improving way more rapidly than Signle Player one since the release of game 1, some examples of things that got added are;

    Spectator slots for lobby games so casters can cast/expierance it better,
    Unit caps
    Ladder resets (work in progress)
    Organised events by CA
    more frequent balancing


    Now its true there are many things to improve but i think game 3 is where CA will take a massive interest in Multilayer side and actually invest into it, there has been mentions already of having their own server for ladder etc.

    I dotn agree at all that balancing needs to be different for SP and MP, all that needs to be done is any major changes to stats/game mechanics in MP are compensated by additional boosts in techs/skills.

    Say VC get an upgraded nehek for 1 more skill point in campaign that lets them heal 8 units instead of 4, etc etc.

    So base unit stats should always be balanced with MP in mind for the good of the game, but single player should have its own balancing on top with technologies etc
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,382

    They are under-statted due to multiplayer complaints. That's not the mechanics being too old - they just aren't competitive in auto-resolve battles because the MP community continually insisted on adjusting their stats downward.

    And again, just one example.

    Trolls used to be an interesting unit with specific vulnerabilities and low leadership - difficult to make cost effective. Now they're just another big thug because the MP community kept insisting they were too weak.

    Arachnarok spiders are now a shadow of their former selves, as are Demigryph Knights. The most elite cavalry in the entire Empire, now just another piece of elite cavalry with a different skin.

    Incredibly lame, IMHO.

    Vampire count units are weak because CA doesn’t listen to te MP community demanding their crap units get an update.
  • Black_PhillipBlack_Phillip Registered Users Posts: 623
    edited February 14
    Vampire Counts are one of my mains and I think they’re one of the factions CA pays attention to a lot more than other factions. They have gotten a ton of buffs and reworks. I don’t think they have any really bad matchups any more, just 2 bad ones, and one almost as bad. DE and HE can be tough and WE a little less so, but I’m thinking the people complaining about them don’t have much experience with them.

    I used to have trouble with LM and Norsca but not really anymore. Sometimes VC gets cheesed and it takes more work to win but I think overall VC is a strong faction. You just can’t rely on the old meta of Dragons and Terrorgheists anymore. They can still be good sometimes but dragons has generally fallen out of the meta for every faction. Now I’d say it’s more about Kemmler, sometimes Ghorst, Crypt Horrors, Wight Kings, Corpse Carts, Black Knights, Blood Knights, and Varghulfs.

    But I wouldn’t say VC have any really bad units, not like other factions such as LM, and DE. Yeah they may be strong because of a few units they have but they have a lot of units that aren’t viable and need to be looked at.
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 1,989

    Vampire Counts have been so badly nerfed by multiplayer changes that the VC factions in single player are no longer competitive. They usually die within 50~ turns, and are never a factor unless human controlled.

    That's just one example.

    I doubt I'm in a minority position thinking this is a bad direction for the game, killing the narrative immersion.

    Which goes to show how little you actually know about the game.


    Unit stats and performance is 100% irrelevant to Vampire Counts sucking in Campaign. AI vs AI battles are based purely on auto-resolves.


    How do mp changes make it hard for the AI vs other AI?
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,362

    TeNoSkill said:

    They are under-statted due to multiplayer complaints. That's not the mechanics being too old - they just aren't competitive in auto-resolve battles because the MP community continually insisted on adjusting their stats downward.

    And again, just one example.

    Trolls used to be an interesting unit with specific vulnerabilities and low leadership - difficult to make cost effective. Now they're just another big thug because the MP community kept insisting they were too weak.

    Arachnarok spiders are now a shadow of their former selves, as are Demigryph Knights. The most elite cavalry in the entire Empire, now just another piece of elite cavalry with a different skin.

    Incredibly lame, IMHO.

    How are they weak?
    Their stats across the board are just too low.

    Specific example if you like - Grave Guard have 24 melee attack, almost 10 less (before any other factors, like the Empire's anti-vampire technology - which would be awesome if not for the already existing stat disparity) than Empire Swordsmen. In a spreadsheet auto-combat (which is what happens between AI players in the campaign), the VC just aren't winning those fights ever.

    And the only reason the stats are so terrible is that the VC received round after round after round of stat reductions because the MP community was adamant that VC was 'the meta' and needed to be 'nerfed'.

    And the same thing happened with anything else that was 'the meta'.

    It's total nonsense. Warhammer isn't for you if you believe that everything needs to be balanced and samey.
    "This is a bold strategy cotton, let's see if it pays off"
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,544
    and yet VC units trade quite well for their cost with other factions units....perhaps the fact they dont break and all cause fear does have an impact on their performance at the expense of bit lower MA/MD...imagine if MA/MD were the only stats that mattered in an engagement...go figure

    You posting that they got low MA while refusing to point out they actually trade very reasonably with other untis of that time/price range, shows to me that you have no idea what you are talking about the slightest.
  • turrehundturrehund Registered Users Posts: 385
    While the community that plays MP might be small, the community that watches MP battles is way larger. Frankly, I've never understood why people watch campaign LP's as it's so damn slow.

    CA invests heavily into the MP scene on YouTube and Twitch (Everchosen Tournament, for instance). If the game was an unbalanced mess with certain factions being extremely underpowered and some factions being unbeatable, this type of content wouldn't be entertaining whatsoever.

    The MP community is also fantastic at spotting small details that campaign players would barely notice (mass Inconsistencies, bugs, foot lords being useless). You can't balance the game around single player as there's no solid metrics to balance them by.

    Although, one grievance about the game not being balanced around single player is that a lot of aspects of the game is rarely discussed (although there is a thread about campaign skills going on).
    One thing that has annoyed me for years as a HE main is the fact that Shadow Warriors don't benefit from the melee red line talents and thus are way weaker than Lothern Seaguard that become superheroes from benefiting from two separate skill trees.
  • TheKrakenmeisterTheKrakenmeister Registered Users Posts: 131
    SP balance and MP balance are completely independent. ANY stat in multiplayer can be changed in singleplayer with the addition of a single ancillary, effect, technology, etc. with no impact on multiplayer balance.

    If a SP unit feels lackluster, that's because of SP balance and has nothing to do with MP balance, period.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 508
    edited February 14
    You cant rely on any single source for balance. unit use is a good measure though, especially if you want variety. if a unit is overused, even if its actually balanced in power it can be healthy for the meta to give it slight debuffs until the use is more balanced. For better measurement unit use of top players is generally a better measure though, but even there it can be deceptive and metadependent.
    So looking at meta/unit use can point to a problem with unit use which may merit action on its own and POTENTIAL unitpower issue.
    I would say tho that for MP using unit use data as source you couldnt go wrong, simply because even if you are making powerbalance worse you are still improving the game by furthering variety. Something like every month the 20% least used units get a 1% cost decrease and the 20% most used a 1% increase would improve almost any game.

    when it comes to more objective data, looking at stats is pretty much useless. my favorite example is
    https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f=0&k=wh_main_emp_inf_handgunners&m&r=0&v=1678833570709893302&units=f=0&k=wh_main_emp_cav_outriders_0&m&r=0&v=1678833570709893302

    which seems like outriders should win slightly (slightly fewer hitpoints, more damage pr unit) but in fact is incredibly one sided win for gunners in a shootout.

    You can test units in custom battle tho, and while that doesnt give a perfect idea of strength either because it doesnt factor in interactions with different units its your best source. There is no way to determine objectively when the difference in power is slight tho, but it readily reveals if a unit is grossly under or overpowered.

    As for MP vs SP first changes based solely on MP should only affect MP and vice versa. There are units that function very differently in campaign vs a single battle. an example of this is unbreakable units with low armore that are generally more or less balanced in MP but need a big buff in campaign.
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,701
    edited February 14
    What do you expect from handgunners vs outriders?

    One unit has more range, higher per missile damage and 30 more models. The stats make it pretty clear who comes out on top and to no surprise handgunners win the matchup.

    The thing is only MP allows us to see cost performance of units. In SP there are a whole bunch of other factors including buffs, upkeep, replenishment and research that effect it all and those need to be balanced seperatly.

    SP changes a lot more due to lord movement and other faction buff than the unit changes.

    Look at VC before the last update they were doing fine, kicking the empire around early game and sometimes they managed to finish them off sometimes they didn't. But drycha changed that, surprise surprise adding a faction centered around a unit that minces VC early game is going to throw the balance for a loop. The fact that Legendary makes doomstack and mass ranged so much better than a balanced army isn't a problem the MP crowed caused on normal most units are viable in SP.
  • TempBlackRuffyTempBlackRuffy Registered Users Posts: 6
    I myself am not a big fan of "meta" in gaming. I do feel this competitiveness can take quite a bit out of a game.
    As a longtime Warhammer player (started in 4th edition till the end) I can see what OP is trying to say that uniqueness could get lost. On the TT some factions had certain playstyles and when playing that race you knew what you where getting yourself into. Its what made these factions unique and flavourfull.
    Now you have people screaming for WoC to get Lore of Life and Dwarfs to get Goat Cav. because they are "not competitive otherwise". But this is the wrong way to go in my opinion.

    I don't want to ruin the game for anyone. I don't want an 1to1 adaptation of the TT either.
    I would really just like for the Races to have their unique ways of playing them and balanced around that. Heck, the LL and Heroes on the TT opened up different ways to play your race. So in Total War they could have leand heavily on that.

    All the original Warhammer Fans at least once thought to themself how awesome it would be to see all of this animated and in a game. A faithfull adaptation of your guys and the world and the fighting and the Lore.
    Was the balance perfect on the TT? No way! I kept stomping people with Nurgle Demonprinces all the time. What did my friends do? Started to bring 2-3 Terrorgheist and nuke my Demonprince in one turn and as Chaos I had no real counter.
    There is no perfect balance. And competitiveness will always lead to a "meta" forming. Just like it did on the TT.

    We solved this by desciding beforhand if we wanted to play for the Win, or for fun. If it was fun you could bring whatever crazy meme armylist you could come up with. And when it was for the Win, well, you could expect the broken ****.

    I don't know how all this can be solved. And sorry for rambling on.

    I guess all I want is a cool Warhammer game that all can enjoy and just a little maybe nudges that little bit of nostalgia I feel for those many hours I spent with this great hobby and my friends.
  • PippingtonPippington Registered Users Posts: 2,195
    edited February 14

    Arachnarok spiders are now a shadow of their former selves, as are Demigryph Knights. The most elite cavalry in the entire Empire, now just another piece of elite cavalry with a different skin.

    The only differences between Arachnaroks in Game 1 and as they are now is that their recruitment cost has gone down by 100, they've gained 14 bonus vs. large, and their health has gone up by about 20% (as most units' did in the game 1 -> game 2 transition). Sadly TWWstats doesn't go back to WH1 but honga.net does:

    Warhammer 1
    Warhammer 2

    I think it's a shame you are going overboard in your arguments in this way, because you do have a good point or two (particularly about how 'metas' are subject to change even when the base game doesn't change at all) - but you definitely seem to have your facts muddled on some points.

    EDIT: Ah sorry yes, their armour has gone down recently... but otherwise all buffs. And the armour change is the difference between 96% resistance to non-AP damage (WH1) and 87% (WH2).
    Post edited by Pippington on


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

  • ThisIsREMThisIsREM Registered Users Posts: 111
    edited February 14
    CA_Duck said:



    2) Keep the gameplay fresh. This means tweaking the balance every major patch to shake the meta up. We want each major patch to come with something new to discover.

    For this point, could try to not go ridiculously overboard with this priority please? I understand that to keep things fresh you may occasionally give certain units a bit more than they should to shake things up. However, there is a limit, e.g. 95 speed terror causing monstrous mount with regen and faction of the cost of competitors is not required to "shake the meta up".
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 8,691
    ThisIsREM said:

    you may occasionally give certain units a bit more than they should to shake things up. However, there is a limit, e.g. 95 speed terror causing monstrous mount with regen and faction of the cost of competitors is not required to "shake the meta up".

    55 ld.

    Phoenix is 90 ld and 120 speed terror with nuke and rebirth. Maybe should add in the 20% resist, fire and magic attack and xtra 12% ward
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
Sign In or Register to comment.