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

Is the current patch the best ever for viable build diversity?

2456789

Comments

  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,147
    eumaies said:

    WE have some of the strongest army spam right now. But in the last faction war Turin just cast dacder pulled off a stream of wins with small elite builds and even including wild riders a lot.

    Largely I find elite cav is more of a supporting reactive force now, similar to how elite inf has to be used quite cautiously. The balance may be off but there’s still a role for it.

    I dont know how many of his games you saw, but there were also quite a few extreme spam builds, e.g. 20 stacks and hawk cheeses
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    edited August 23
    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    WE have some of the strongest army spam right now. But in the last faction war Turin just cast dacder pulled off a stream of wins with small elite builds and even including wild riders a lot.

    Largely I find elite cav is more of a supporting reactive force now, similar to how elite inf has to be used quite cautiously. The balance may be off but there’s still a role for it.

    I dont know how many of his games you saw, but there were also quite a few extreme spam builds, e.g. 20 stacks and hawk cheeses
    he did 4 of 4 on turin's stream, which is the one i watched for the round of 8.
    2:12:19
    2:03:25
    1:47:12
    52:40

    I would hope he uses wide builds as well since I consider them stronger for WE with their insane glade guard spam option, but he certainly showed the elites can work too against the toughest competition.

  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,147
    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    WE have some of the strongest army spam right now. But in the last faction war Turin just cast dacder pulled off a stream of wins with small elite builds and even including wild riders a lot.

    Largely I find elite cav is more of a supporting reactive force now, similar to how elite inf has to be used quite cautiously. The balance may be off but there’s still a role for it.

    I dont know how many of his games you saw, but there were also quite a few extreme spam builds, e.g. 20 stacks and hawk cheeses
    he did 4 of 4 on turin's stream, which is the one i watched for the round of 8.
    2:12:19
    2:03:25
    1:47:12
    52:40

    I would hope he uses wide builds as well since I consider them stronger for WE with their insane glade guard spam option, but he certainly showed the elites can work too against the toughest competition.

    52:40 its vs DE so really anything can work, 1:47 was quite wide with glade guard, but the elite infantry is nice to see, 2:03 was only 1 wild rider though and i dont consider wild riders elite cav. Nice to see elite infantry being used and 2:12 was again a slight variation of glade guard stack, but at that point his opponent was out of it.

    What i saw throughout the stream for most factions was mostly efficient formulaic cookie cutter builds with only slight variations to account for different factions. I even saw the exact same builds (not on stream) being used vs multiple different factions because they are so optimal there is no point in variation. build diversity has been going down for a while. A cynic might guess this is either due to DLC making a certain style the absolute optimal way to win (e.g. WE) or lack of dlc making factions have to play a certain way to stay competitive, e.g. chaos and bretonnia often play most matchups the same way.

    I think some factions' (competitive) build diversity has increased, for example lizardmen, but most others have decreased.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    Well the fewer patches we get, the more build diversity should decrease (*cough* greenskins *cough*) and for longer periods of time, if only because people have more time to learn from each other.

    in this specific case, none of those builds was what one would call a "20 stack" or close to it. Granted they weren't 10 stacks either.

    Where I will agree with you is that cav is weaker than it used to be so that actually does hurt diversity by making a key unit type relatively less common and less spammable (though perhaps infantry diversity has increased if you care about that - i suspect you don't).
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,147
    eumaies said:

    Well the fewer patches we get, the more build diversity should decrease (*cough* greenskins *cough*) and for longer periods of time, if only because people have more time to learn from each other.

    in this specific case, none of those builds was what one would call a "20 stack" or close to it. Granted they weren't 10 stacks either.

    Where I will agree with you is that cav is weaker than it used to be so that actually does hurt diversity by making a key unit type relatively less common and less spammable (though perhaps infantry diversity has increased if you care about that - i suspect you don't).

    why would you suspect that? you think the factions i play dont have large amounts of infantry, especially elite infantry? think before you speak please.

    I dont think infantry diversity has increased either (infantry volume has), you see less and less spear/halberd types these days and far more of the chaff and armoured GW types. Ideally they would all be used.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    Well the fewer patches we get, the more build diversity should decrease (*cough* greenskins *cough*) and for longer periods of time, if only because people have more time to learn from each other.

    in this specific case, none of those builds was what one would call a "20 stack" or close to it. Granted they weren't 10 stacks either.

    Where I will agree with you is that cav is weaker than it used to be so that actually does hurt diversity by making a key unit type relatively less common and less spammable (though perhaps infantry diversity has increased if you care about that - i suspect you don't).

    why would you suspect that? you think the factions i play dont have large amounts of infantry, especially elite infantry? think before you speak please.

    I dont think infantry diversity has increased either (infantry volume has), you see less and less spear/halberd types these days and far more of the chaff and armoured GW types. Ideally they would all be used.
    Ah, ok. Well yeah i disagree I think you still see a good amount of spears/halbards, but not as much as before and you see more elite infantry for sure since they have much more of an end-game presence. I assumed you hadn't noticed but apparently we're seeing different things in the meta.

  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,147
    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    Well the fewer patches we get, the more build diversity should decrease (*cough* greenskins *cough*) and for longer periods of time, if only because people have more time to learn from each other.

    in this specific case, none of those builds was what one would call a "20 stack" or close to it. Granted they weren't 10 stacks either.

    Where I will agree with you is that cav is weaker than it used to be so that actually does hurt diversity by making a key unit type relatively less common and less spammable (though perhaps infantry diversity has increased if you care about that - i suspect you don't).

    why would you suspect that? you think the factions i play dont have large amounts of infantry, especially elite infantry? think before you speak please.

    I dont think infantry diversity has increased either (infantry volume has), you see less and less spear/halberd types these days and far more of the chaff and armoured GW types. Ideally they would all be used.
    Ah, ok. Well yeah i disagree I think you still see a good amount of spears/halbards, but not as much as before and you see more elite infantry for sure since they have much more of an end-game presence. I assumed you hadn't noticed but apparently we're seeing different things in the meta.

    well sounds like you agree with me more than disagree
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 744
    edited August 23
    WE vs chaos Sigvald is like the worst possible choice literally every WE lord option has a way to goon him out cause you know he’s a foot lord and generally foot lords are terrible vs WE.

    I watched that game literally could of gone with more mobility and WE cavalry wouldn’t have been able to protect archers at all could of cut two chosen for more numbers.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    Well the fewer patches we get, the more build diversity should decrease (*cough* greenskins *cough*) and for longer periods of time, if only because people have more time to learn from each other.

    in this specific case, none of those builds was what one would call a "20 stack" or close to it. Granted they weren't 10 stacks either.

    Where I will agree with you is that cav is weaker than it used to be so that actually does hurt diversity by making a key unit type relatively less common and less spammable (though perhaps infantry diversity has increased if you care about that - i suspect you don't).

    why would you suspect that? you think the factions i play dont have large amounts of infantry, especially elite infantry? think before you speak please.

    I dont think infantry diversity has increased either (infantry volume has), you see less and less spear/halberd types these days and far more of the chaff and armoured GW types. Ideally they would all be used.
    Ah, ok. Well yeah i disagree I think you still see a good amount of spears/halbards, but not as much as before and you see more elite infantry for sure since they have much more of an end-game presence. I assumed you hadn't noticed but apparently we're seeing different things in the meta.

    well sounds like you agree with me more than disagree
    except the part where i see more diversity in infantry types and you don't, so...
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,147
    I think GW and chaff units are totally dominating the infantry picks because they do everything spears/halberds do but better, and either faster or for much cheaper



  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    Loupi_ said:

    I think GW and chaff units are totally dominating the infantry picks because they do everything spears/halberds do but better, and either faster or for much cheaper



    Got it, very few spears or halbards. Let me check that against the last tourney I watched or played in.... yeah no.

  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    edited August 24
    GW being dominant is untrue by any objective look at current gameplay, while there may be some truth to the fact we are in a "wider than it used to be" meta, but pretty much every other qualifier to that statement is wrong.

    Very common to see builds with between 12-16 units, lots of chariots being used, lots of elite cavalry/infantry/chariots being used, wide and diverse selection of infantry being used certainly not just GW.

    Look at this tourney and tell me that cav isn't used or chariots aren't used or spears/halberds aren't used or any of the other theories about reduced build diversity are true:

    Wide selection of factions brought, wide selection of armies styles brought, wide selection of units brought. Although I'm sure now the goalposts will be moved again and there will be all sorts of explanations for why these don't really represent true build diversity because it only counts as build diversity if you can count the number of units in the army using just your fingers & thumbs.



    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,680
    edited August 24

    GW being dominant is untrue by any objective look at current gameplay, while there may be some truth to the fact we are in a "wider than it used to be" meta, but pretty much every other qualifier to that statement is wrong.

    Very common to see builds with between 12-16 units, lots of chariots being used, lots of elite cavalry/infantry/chariots being used, wide and diverse selection of infantry being used certainly not just GW.

    Look at this tourney and tell me that cav isn't used or chariots aren't used or spears/halberds aren't used or any of the other theories about reduced build diversity are true:

    Wide selection of factions brought, wide selection of armies styles brought, wide selection of units brought. Although I'm sure now the goalposts will be moved again and there will be all sorts of explanations for why these don't really represent true build diversity because it only counts as build diversity if you can count the number of units in the army using just your fingers & thumbs.



    What kind of argument is that? show me a toruny that those untis were never used? so you're saying same untis are used as in the past? its the volume that matters not not that some are used, defiently see less cav/chariots and more GW infantry + Chaff those days, they still used but less than before, you seen elite infantry even when mosnters were OP also.

    One thing is clear tho 16+ stack spam is dominating, seriously looking at above if its almost as 1 playstyle got copy and pasted across all factions and is the only viable style (there were very few exceptions to that), horrible state if you are forced to play one style to compete. Need to fix this horrid diversity fast
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    Yeah the claims don’t hold up to any scrutiny at all. Ok chaos takes more gw than before. Woooo.

    Show me a tourney from a year ago that was meaningfully different in army sizes. Wide was always good.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    edited August 25
    @Lotus_Moon We have quite different views on certain elements of how to approach gameplay overall and what constitutes good gameplay, so seems like we may be talking past each other a bit.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, can you post a few specific examples of builds you think should be viable and common picks that can't be used currently? The full build itself, don't need to worry about the specific itemisation of the lords/heroes, more just the overall build.

    This is an open question to any of the people who are dissatisfied (from what I can tell) with the current build diversity from this thread

    @Totentanz777
    @Loupi_
    @Disposable Hero
    @AfghanMamba
    @ShevaTsar
    @ThisIsREM
    @ThibixMagnus
    @BovineKing

    I would be interested in your build proposals here too. What exactly are the builds that you find to be unusable and would like to be more so?
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    I am not dissatisfied with any build not being used, I just disagree that build diversity has increased. Main effect right now is that MP is almost dead compared to before, everybody waiting for a fix....

    Build diversity is a very subjective measure and also quite insensitive. We had all kinds of builds before and all kinds of build now, just more and less of different styles. Most of all the game is just in such a sorry state that it's hard to draw any conclusions about any meta, and talking about improvement for me right now feels a lightyear away.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,680
    eumaies said:

    Yeah the claims don’t hold up to any scrutiny at all. Ok chaos takes more gw than before. Woooo.

    Show me a tourney from a year ago that was meaningfully different in army sizes. Wide was always good.

    Yes it was good, but not dominant, no style was dominant and all were viable thats the whole point, now you see 16+ stack as dominant without doubt.

    i want all styles to be viable not just selected few.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,680

    @Lotus_Moon We have quite different views on certain elements of how to approach gameplay overall and what constitutes good gameplay, so seems like we may be talking past each other a bit.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, can you post a few specific examples of builds you think should be viable and common picks that can't be used currently? The full build itself, don't need to worry about the specific itemisation of the lords/heroes, more just the overall build.

    This is an open question to any of the people who are dissatisfied (from what I can tell) with the current build diversity from this thread

    @Totentanz777
    @Loupi_
    @Disposable Hero
    @AfghanMamba
    @ShevaTsar
    @ThisIsREM
    @ThibixMagnus
    @BovineKing

    I would be interested in your build proposals here too. What exactly are the builds that you find to be unusable and would like to be more so?

    I think all builds should be viable and i think they not on the same level currently, i think the standard all round build is clearly dominant now which happens to be 16+ stack with some different unit types mixed in but mainly infantry and ranged. I dont suggest one build should be more viable than other just all should, where as i feel now the 16+ stack is absolutely the most dominant one. Build diversity is horrid now, but unit diversity is decent that part is fine, we see quite a reasonable ammount of different units across all same builds/style, what i want is expend the viable styles more.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044

    @Lotus_Moon We have quite different views on certain elements of how to approach gameplay overall and what constitutes good gameplay, so seems like we may be talking past each other a bit.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, can you post a few specific examples of builds you think should be viable and common picks that can't be used currently? The full build itself, don't need to worry about the specific itemisation of the lords/heroes, more just the overall build.

    This is an open question to any of the people who are dissatisfied (from what I can tell) with the current build diversity from this thread

    @Totentanz777
    @Loupi_
    @Disposable Hero
    @AfghanMamba
    @ShevaTsar
    @ThisIsREM
    @ThibixMagnus
    @BovineKing

    I would be interested in your build proposals here too. What exactly are the builds that you find to be unusable and would like to be more so?

    I think all builds should be viable and i think they not on the same level currently, i think the standard all round build is clearly dominant now which happens to be 16+ stack with some different unit types mixed in but mainly infantry and ranged. I dont suggest one build should be more viable than other just all should, where as i feel now the 16+ stack is absolutely the most dominant one. Build diversity is horrid now, but unit diversity is decent that part is fine, we see quite a reasonable ammount of different units across all same builds/style, what i want is expend the viable styles more.
    So are you saying we should remove unit caps then? As well as limits on heroes etc? Cause that way the number of playstyles would have the maximum possible diversity.

    I know you aren't proposing this, but it points to the problem with this whole line of abstract reasoning. Certain builds if enabled drastically reduce overall build diversity/unit diversity especially at higher levels of play. That is why it would be helpful to turn this from an abstract discussion into more concrete suggestions for builds that would enhance gameplay. Because they can actually be looked at and debated about what impact that would have on overall build/playstyle/unit diversity.

    Remember that tourney rules (which are what unit caps are based one) arose precisely BECAUSE too much freedom in build selection functionally has the impact of drastically decreasing the number of viable units/playstyles/builds. This was the exact situation this game was in for a very long time in regards to large vs infantry dynamics (and especially in the utility of foot characters vs mounts) that has only relatively recently changed.

    In the current patch I see box builds/kite builds/rush builds/snipe builds and they all contain high unit/lord/hero diversity. I stand by the claim that build and playstyle diversity has never been higher, even if the unit card counts are more similar. Using the number of unit cards in a build as a measure of playstyle or build diversity doesn't really seem like a reasonable metric in any case, especially when we know that reinforcements are coming are will push the number of unit cards up even further. I know you aren't a fan of the idea of reinforcements which is fair enough, but seeing as one of the impacts it is going to have is more unit cards it does seem like CA are going in the exact opposite direction from what some people are saying the game should be going.

    I'm open to being persuaded that build/playstyle diversity is horrible, but without actual concrete examples of what is missing it is tough to take the idea seriously when to me the game currently feels like it is in the exact opposite state from what is being claimed.

    So to bring it back to the original question, what styles/builds do you think aren't currently usable? Do you (or anyone else) have any examples you could post?
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959

    I stand by the claim that build and playstyle diversity has never been higher, even if the unit card counts are more similar.

    Are you saying build diversity was lower in 1.10.2 than in 1.12.0 though?

    Can't say I have seen any indication of this, rather the opposite on "average". The more "elite" builds seemed to have had a higher presence before when you didn't always expect near maximum amount of HP on the opposite side of the field every game... My impression is that in order to respond to stronger wide builds, people bring their own wide builds. Not exclusively, but more often than before. If you before could get by using for example DWS as your ranged component you now go glade guard, if you before went SW you now go mass archers etc. Likewise cavalry _focused_ builds seems more rare (where your cavalry play is your win con), now they feel more like an auxiliary unit. The non-broken chariots are unchanged, so BM/GS chariots being picked when allowed doesn't make chariots in general in a good place.

    Just impressions though, there is very little "statistics" to go by since comp play has been pretty much on hold until just recently when it seemed like they gave up on a patch and tried to get things rolling again anyways.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,680

    @Lotus_Moon We have quite different views on certain elements of how to approach gameplay overall and what constitutes good gameplay, so seems like we may be talking past each other a bit.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, can you post a few specific examples of builds you think should be viable and common picks that can't be used currently? The full build itself, don't need to worry about the specific itemisation of the lords/heroes, more just the overall build.

    This is an open question to any of the people who are dissatisfied (from what I can tell) with the current build diversity from this thread

    @Totentanz777
    @Loupi_
    @Disposable Hero
    @AfghanMamba
    @ShevaTsar
    @ThisIsREM
    @ThibixMagnus
    @BovineKing

    I would be interested in your build proposals here too. What exactly are the builds that you find to be unusable and would like to be more so?

    I think all builds should be viable and i think they not on the same level currently, i think the standard all round build is clearly dominant now which happens to be 16+ stack with some different unit types mixed in but mainly infantry and ranged. I dont suggest one build should be more viable than other just all should, where as i feel now the 16+ stack is absolutely the most dominant one. Build diversity is horrid now, but unit diversity is decent that part is fine, we see quite a reasonable ammount of different units across all same builds/style, what i want is expend the viable styles more.
    So are you saying we should remove unit caps then? As well as limits on heroes etc? Cause that way the number of playstyles would have the maximum possible diversity.

    I know you aren't proposing this, but it points to the problem with this whole line of abstract reasoning. Certain builds if enabled drastically reduce overall build diversity/unit diversity especially at higher levels of play. That is why it would be helpful to turn this from an abstract discussion into more concrete suggestions for builds that would enhance gameplay. Because they can actually be looked at and debated about what impact that would have on overall build/playstyle/unit diversity.

    Remember that tourney rules (which are what unit caps are based one) arose precisely BECAUSE too much freedom in build selection functionally has the impact of drastically decreasing the number of viable units/playstyles/builds. This was the exact situation this game was in for a very long time in regards to large vs infantry dynamics (and especially in the utility of foot characters vs mounts) that has only relatively recently changed.

    In the current patch I see box builds/kite builds/rush builds/snipe builds and they all contain high unit/lord/hero diversity. I stand by the claim that build and playstyle diversity has never been higher, even if the unit card counts are more similar. Using the number of unit cards in a build as a measure of playstyle or build diversity doesn't really seem like a reasonable metric in any case, especially when we know that reinforcements are coming are will push the number of unit cards up even further. I know you aren't a fan of the idea of reinforcements which is fair enough, but seeing as one of the impacts it is going to have is more unit cards it does seem like CA are going in the exact opposite direction from what some people are saying the game should be going.

    I'm open to being persuaded that build/playstyle diversity is horrible, but without actual concrete examples of what is missing it is tough to take the idea seriously when to me the game currently feels like it is in the exact opposite state from what is being claimed.

    So to bring it back to the original question, what styles/builds do you think aren't currently usable? Do you (or anyone else) have any examples you could post?
    NO im clearly not freaking saying that am i?

    You're simply wrong on what you wrote above, its balance thats the problem, we had very good build diversity in the past with same restrictions the only problem back then was with monster balance and there were armies that were mosnter heavy dominating and that needed fixing which i believe it did, no other army was really dominating and all were viable, the fix to mosnter one was great and than we had almost all armies viable unill they did the "stag" fixes, so you trying to say that only way to make all styles viable is to remove unit cap is not remotely true.

    "In the current patch I see box builds/kite builds/rush builds/snipe" well you seen it in all patches, just they hardly get used, majority a big majority is 16+ stack, i know you like the current patch but its garbage.

    My post above stands same, just re read it again without stupid bias of suggesting i want unti caps removed.

    This is by far the worst patch for build diversity i have ever played on and you only defend it coz you find the 16+ all round stack fun, i think that is a fine style and should be viable like it always was, just i find it dominating now as for kite, cav heavy sure you see it once in blue moon, that does not make it viable, box builds i do agree are viable now because cav is a background role now but box style is one style i have no respect for (talking about the campaign dwarf box) so i dont care if thats weakend.

    I really dont care you stand by your claim, i think you're wrong and current patch and state is garbage, if you like to support this state of diversity thats on you but dont try to sell it as "best ever" when its by far the worst ever, say this on turins discord and you will see how people will react about current state of the game, here on forum where you have 5 campaign players + 3 others liking the current state is not gonna give you a clear picture (though i am suprised even this posts seems to be heavy in disagreement from majority), if you open this to tourney people to respond u will see what they think, the amount of complaining i see daily about current state of 16+ stacks dominating is heartbreaking.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,680
    Just incase its too hard for you to understand i wil lay it out more clear.

    I think all builds within unit restrictions should be viable and within similar power levels, currently i think this is not the case i think the 16+ "balanced" stack is dominating hard as seen by pick rate and win rate of such builds, other strategies are still present but are defiantly rare and not as viable. I also think the current 16+ stack requires less skill to use than it did in the past largely because its much easier to defend vs cav and chariots with it hence its harder to punish. There is a reason why those armies are joked about when they win anything those days.

    Post your question on turins discord if you truly think the state of diversity is good, my view is you will get flamed for saying, but if the state is as great as you think than you should get people supporting your claim yeah?

    1 style being used by majority of player base those days and you here telling me build diversity is best ever....

    Its by far worst state of build diversity i have seen since i stared playing this game, only one other that comes clsoe to mind was when SEM were dominating where we had 6 SEM blobs every game, that was almost as bad, well actually nah that was just as bad as this one.
  • ShevaTsarShevaTsar Registered Users Posts: 606
    edited August 25
    No point tagging me when i've already been pretty exhaustive in my very first comment to which no response.

    But i guess Morathi + Double Manti and rest chaff every single game as an example is what you call good build diversity.
    Welcome to Cathay - the very ancient, super-duper, hyper, fantastic, incredible, majestic, wonderful, sexy, mighty empire, the greatest of all livings.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,680
    edited August 25
    ShevaTsar said:

    No point tagging me when i've already been pretty exhaustive in my very first comment to which no response.

    But i guess Morathi + Double Manti and rest chaff every single game as an example is what you call good build diversity.

    because to him sometimes swapping the spearmen for bleaksowrds is what diversity should be, swap out pieces in your build but ignore the fact its the same approach each time, that to him is build diversity... to me that is not, its unit diversity within same build, and the unit diversity is also very cloudy since its similar units replacing others here and there, its almost never cav replacing infantry or ranged etc, its infantry replacing infantry, ranged replacing ranged, cav replacing cav, the builds hardly change at all if you consider unit types.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959



    Post your question on turins discord if you truly think the state of diversity is good, my view is you will get flamed for saying, but if the state is as great as you think than you should get people supporting your claim yeah?

    He won't be flamed in Turins discord though, that place is being moderated. :joy:
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,680



    Post your question on turins discord if you truly think the state of diversity is good, my view is you will get flamed for saying, but if the state is as great as you think than you should get people supporting your claim yeah?

    He won't be flamed in Turins discord though, that place is being moderated. :joy:
    well flamed is wrong word, i meant lots people jumping on disagreement and many rather strongly, not sure what word would describe that the best.
  • Totentanz777Totentanz777 Registered Users Posts: 636
    An incomplete list of units that were once good and picked all the time but are no longer viable/picked:
    Malekith dragon
    Hydra/hydra ROR
    Demigryphs
    Dragon princes
    Feral carno
    Fimir
    Cold one chariot
    Doom flayers

    This isn't including units that were never good/viable like the black dragon, grail relique, trolls, or crypt Horrors.

    Certain units can be picked in literally every matchup such as Cham skinks, marauder GW, literally any meatshield unit, miners BC, glade guard, etc.

    Isn't it a bit odd that the faction most known for their cavalry presence-Bretonnia-now plays now most of their games by taking 5 peasants, Fay double paladin, artillery, missiles and MAYBE 2 units of questing knights? How about DE where Morathi is so much better than every other lord(RIP Lohkir, Malus and Crone). Or HE where Teclis and Alarielle are the clear best.

    If you want to play Tyrion because he is fun then go for it. But don't pretend he is anywhere near the power level of Teclis or Alarielle. Again, there is a difference between taking units because they are fun vs taking them because your goal is to win.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 750

    @Lotus_Moon We have quite different views on certain elements of how to approach gameplay overall and what constitutes good gameplay, so seems like we may be talking past each other a bit.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, can you post a few specific examples of builds you think should be viable and common picks that can't be used currently? The full build itself, don't need to worry about the specific itemisation of the lords/heroes, more just the overall build.

    This is an open question to any of the people who are dissatisfied (from what I can tell) with the current build diversity from this thread

    @Totentanz777
    @Loupi_
    @Disposable Hero
    @AfghanMamba
    @ShevaTsar
    @ThisIsREM
    @ThibixMagnus
    @BovineKing

    I would be interested in your build proposals here too. What exactly are the builds that you find to be unusable and would like to be more so?

    Well I gotta say I won't be as assertive as others because I don't have the time to play tournament level yet (though writing takes time ^^). Also I already mentioned that I can see an argument for less "army diversity" in that there maybe is less "army-selection wins" before battle.

    But about specific builds. As I already said as example in this thread, I just wish bretonnia could take more cavalry than infantry quite frequently and in many MUs (not only VC and WE). I would like 2 grails-tier and 4 mid-tier, something like that, to be quite common, and full-cav to be possible very occasionally. Maybe it is already the case, if I see a better player achieve it in tournament I will be happy to know it is possible. The thing is, cavalry can be played in many ways and today it remains good as support for 1) flanking 2) counter-initiating (that's why counter-initiation cav such as cold ones remain good). But if you want really cav-centric builds to work, you need cav to be also able to 3) initiate, i.e. charge a frontline if you can create an opportunity (i.e. you lured the enemy counter-initiation somewhere else). That 3d option feels (again, I'm not assertive) not that great now.

    Now to be fair, for bretonnia it is not only a patch issue, they kind of lack the support tools for such a build, so it was never ideal, but now it seems even less viable. Wood elves might be able to play full cav around great stags nowadays, but as the whole game was changed for great stag knights... I pretty dmn hope they are able X)
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    @ThibixMagnus Assertive is certainly a diplomatic way of putting it haha....I agree that Bretonnia is a special case although you will notice in the final match of the tourney I posted the Bret player brought 3 knights of the realm + 1 grail knight which isn't far off the desired builds you mention (and as the only person to actually provide a concrete suggestion for discussion, I appreciate the good faith effort to address my question here). The thing is that it isn't just cav-infantry interactions that inform the current build selection of Bret, price plays an enormous role as well. When for the same price as a Grail Guardian you can bring 9 infantry units (5 peasant mobs, 4 men at arms) basic economics + the utility of having "anvil units" for the "cavalry hammers" determines that you will often see large number of unit cards that are infantry. Even the cheapest cavalry bret can get can still get them 4 peasant mobs for the same price. As I have previously mention, I think that using unit cards as an indicator of build variety is a very poor metric especially when we know reinforcements will push unit card counts further upwards as well as capture points for the first time creating zones in the game that MUST be fought on (with I'm sure various caveats to inform different styles of gameplay), which even if we took the interactions etc of the very first patch of game 2 would have a large impact on builds.

    As a general point, there is a basic rule that the more unit combinations a faction can bring the more they need to rely on combinations of units to perform optimally as opposed to leaning into 1-2 strategies. It is the blessing/curse of unit diversity and build options and the game needs to be this way as otherwise it becomes near impossible to build a reasonable balanced build that won't be countered by an "all-in" build from the opponent. If all infantry, all cavalry, all monster, all range builds are ALL equally viable options for a faction then it is basically extreme build roulette about whether or not you win or lose. And even in the current game build roulette can still be quite a large problem especially for beginner/intermediate players so if we consider the entire playerbase (as well as future hopefully large influx of new players) allowing these types of builds would have a very poor impact on player retention. Reinforcements and other changes can help here, but you can't get too far away from this basic point in overall game design. Imo there are quite unrealistic expectations for what build diversity should mean out there currently

    Back to Bretonnia specifically, if any faction should be able to go full cav (or very nearly full cav) it is Bretonnia. However imo the biggest reason Bretonnia is unable to do this is that their unique faction mechanic, lance formation, is not just bad but actually worse than using cav in the standard formation. This is quite a sad state of affairs and needs to be the very first thing looked at in terms of enabling full cavalry builds or top-heavy cavalry builds from Bret.

    I am not sure on the best way to fix it, and CA have done an excellent job with all content releases over the last few years so won't try second guess the best way to approach improving lance formation. But especially as Bret (at least based on the most recent announcements from CA) won't be receiving any DLC and only limited FLC, fixing lance formation as well as potentially adding in another 1-2 formations for their cavalry with differing benefits seems like the best way to enable the quintessential Cavalry Faction to be all about Cavalry (at least sometimes or more often than currently).
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,147

    @Lotus_Moon We have quite different views on certain elements of how to approach gameplay overall and what constitutes good gameplay, so seems like we may be talking past each other a bit.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, can you post a few specific examples of builds you think should be viable and common picks that can't be used currently? The full build itself, don't need to worry about the specific itemisation of the lords/heroes, more just the overall build.

    This is an open question to any of the people who are dissatisfied (from what I can tell) with the current build diversity from this thread

    @Totentanz777
    @Loupi_
    @Disposable Hero
    @AfghanMamba
    @ShevaTsar
    @ThisIsREM
    @ThibixMagnus
    @BovineKing

    I would be interested in your build proposals here too. What exactly are the builds that you find to be unusable and would like to be more so?

    If you mean "style" or "build strategy" then there are several that I wish were more viable. I wont give exact builds unit by unit if thats what you're asking.

    In terms of styles/strategies I would like to see a little less of max skirmish cav (incl. flying missiles)+very wide infantry builds.

    I would like it if armies whose main damage dealers varied more between range, infantry, SE and cav with the other 3 supporting the main. At the moment armies where the infantry, SE or range are the main damage unit are common but cav is more often a supporting unit.

    I think very elite focussed armies should be more viable (whether its elite cav, infantry or missiles)

    I would like to see armies that take the maximum number of single entities (5) be less common.

    I would like if kite armies (not abusing missile/flying missile cav or chameleon spam) were more viable. I dont necessarily mean ranged kite either, although that is common form of kiting.

Sign In or Register to comment.