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.


All-out invasion of MP players



  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,901


    saweendra said:

    saweendra said:

    saweendra said:

    saweendra said:

    its simple single player experience is too distorted by all of the campagin mechanics and brain dead AI ,hence why devs listen to MP players over SP players or unit balance, because none of you play base stats or fight opponent who knows how to use a army .

    because any time they listen to sp players we have tzeentch mechanics

    The problem with listening to MP players is that MP isn't the same game as SP. MP is about winning a one time battle at any cost. Casualties do not matter, enemy numbers are limited, economy is limited. Long term upkeep of units is irrelevant, all units are recruited instantly, replenishment is irrelevant, and the enemy force is largely comparable with your own.

    That's not the SP situation at all. SP has slow recruitment, upkeep costs that have to be justified, replenishment after a battle is a thing, and winning with horrendous casualties is really not much better than losing. The enemy forces are dumber and less competently composed but way, way more numerous than in MP. Battles do not remain low economy for long (nor should they) and large maps with room for micro when fighting halfstack vs halfstack battles are very different with full stacks or even full double stacks.

    And that's why your "knows how to use a army" and "play base stats" talk is unimpressive. Yes, you do play with base stats and I suspect you do know how to use your army in that single context, but the end goal you optimize for is to win a single engagement with a small force against a smart enemy with a small force. My end goal is to murder legion upon legion upon legion of absolute boneheads without taking too many dents in the process, and preferably without having to use soul-crushingly boring cheese tactics. Whether or not you can gain some tiny economic advantage by having your elite infantry unit get wiped out against two medium infantry units isn't the least bit relevant in my situation.

    Consequently, having my SP balanced through your MP is bad. It's like if your MP were to be balanced by me. It just does not lead to good things. That's why I'm not asking for CA to balance MP according to my SP experience. Why is it so hard for MP types to understand the reverse? Why must every single freaking MP type always want their mostly inept (pardon my French, but you know it's true) "1337 expertise" forced onto the entire SP community?

    You remember why we got regen cap? Not because it did anything good for SP, that's for damn sure. It was because MP jokers would run their half-dead regen fast movers off into the sunset and be all "hey, I'm just dodging you and healing up for the next 20 minutes, wanna grab a coffee?" and of course that had to be stopped. So what happened? Why, a blanket nerf happened. No real rebalance for the nerfed units and of course this fix for MP toxicity had to be shoved onto SP people who didn't have a problem. If the MP crowd wasn't a toxic blight on humanity then we wouldn't have a regen cap. But we do have a regen cap, so what does that tell us?

    Meanwhile, what have years of listening to MP types gotten done in order to make melee infantry actually worthwhile in a campaign context? You think a cost reduction and +2 MA will change anything? Same problem with cavalry, really. Yes, I know, when playing low economy MP army vs similarly low economy MP army, these units do have a clearly defined purpose that they can actually accomplish. But that's not really how things work in a campaign, is it? 20 v 20 with high economy, what does infantry do that that point? What does cavalry do? Then scale it up to 20 v 40, 40 v 40, 40 v 60, or the occasional 20 v 60.

    And instead of suggesting ways that these unit types could get a well defined and feasible purpose in campaign-relevant situations, every single MP balance suggestion I've ever seen has fundamentally been centered around an idea of making everything else as bad as infantry and cavalry, seemingly using historical games as a template for what a battle "should be". Because historical games had a great way of dealing with air units, magic, and the fantasy equivalent of tanks, didn't they?

    Mind you, I'm not saying that SP people aren't just as inane when it comes to balance. I'm not saying I'm any less inane either. CA definitely shouldn't rely just on me for balance ideas, be it SP or MP. And I'm not saying that MP people cannot have good ideas or haven't made good suggestions. I just cannot recall having seen a good idea from them, much less a good idea that was supported by a convincing argument.

    And by convincing argument, I mean one with at least a little bit of actual data behind it. Maybe some math. Maybe some perspectives on the ramifications of the change, where it makes a positive change and potential problems it could result in. Some sort of actual justification for the change that actually sets it above Luci wanting fairie dragons for WE because they're adorable.

    Ok we did talk about the regen cap and I gave a perfectly valid suggestion thats Thematic to put in to balance suggestions. Never so you do that so ...

    The simple matter that's how you fix Sp problems if we wanna adjust to the power creep.

    Personally i could care less about the blatant power creep.

    I want CA to nerf buff stacking, make some sort of basic manpower system, improve Ai behavior so the game falls in line with Mp.

    Because campaign is just snow balling after point

    And about the whole campaign viability thing kind of meh also , its like hawk riders or goblins if you don't play a faction that buff them to the moon there useless with the current power creep

    As for cavalry jeez dude you want cavalry to suddenly just dominate every other unit type, no one used historical games per say to balance to the new cav mechanics its pretty much brand new. Just use the right cav to beat right unit. And use correct buff stacking.

    Unless you don't want to micro csv because even with old cav mechanics i ran full cavalry armies range cav and cav , and or monster cav depending on race. In campaign. And with the new mechanics in wh 2 it should be more improved.
    I don't mind micro but as with anything the utility value of it has to be considered. Why micro chaos knights for so-so returns if one could use a shaggoth and get the same thing done better with much less effort? What's the point?

    I don't particularly want cavalry to dominate, frankly I don't really care that it's a bit niche at the moment, but it seems a lot of other people do mind. And if that problem is to be fixed in a sensible way then the solution isn't to nerf everything (or eliminating buff stacking, again the nerf approach) but to find an actual purpose for players to bring cavalry. Find something for cav to do that other types do not.

    Yes, gobbos will be rubbish without buffs so let them get buffed to the point where they can be used for something. Let them become good enough that they become moderately dangerous garbage that is cheap and fast to recruit. Essentially the WH equivalent of militia cavalry from Rome 1. They don't have to be good, they just have to punch sufficiently above their weight that you can win a war of attrition despite the AI buffs.

    Than ask for x mechanics to buff chaos knights.

    Or ideally nerf the campaign and additional mechanics and Ai overhaul yo make it a closer experience to Mp.
    Why would I want to make campaign a closer experience to MP, though? What makes MP the right way to play the game?

    And buffing chaos knights isn't really a case of a single stat change. They need a purpose that separates them from dragon ogres and shaggoths and right now they don't have that. Anything you can do with chaos knights, you can do better with a shaggoth. There is no reason at all to recruit them in the campaign currently, and I don't have a good idea of how to make that change. Other than nerfing everything else, of course, but what's the fun of that?

    Lol the reason chaos knights doesn't have placd compared to dragon orgers is because the recruitment cost is not enough of a reason.

    In MP you have limited funds and limited slots so some times going 1500 instead 2000 to specialized anti large makes sense because they can be better against more unit types.

    In campaign doesn't matter dragon orgers get cheap enough you can spam them easy enough and with buff stacking they can act as generalist.

    Solution is simple fix the damn campaign. Unit caps and population mechanics are needed so that we know dragon orgers are rarer than chaos knights.

    And buffstacking removed so dragon orgers can not act like generlist.

    I don't see why you can see the actuall problem, and pretend that there has to be some mysterious purpose to a unit.

    Edit why MP is the correct mode simple its literally the place where majority of the units , strategies..etc is viable. Not sp
    Your solution sounds like a nerfhammer, trying to make all campaign gameplay the same low economy skirmish that MP is. That doesn't work for me. I want a campaign that moves beyond low economy and light forces. I want to be able to tech up, scale up, and bring the full force of whatever faction I'm playing. I want a campaign of total war, not a campaign of friendly balanced duels.

    As far as rarity is concerned and how that could relate to unit caps and whatnot, I don't see how it really makes a positive difference. At some point, the player will have a choice between dragon ogres and chaos knights. And when that happens, there's just no reason whatsoever to pick the knights. It's not even like the knights are easier to get or recruited from a lower building tier than dragon ogres. They're not really cheaper in any meaningful way either.

    Rather than nerfing everything, what I'd like is to give chaos knights a niche where they do something that dragon ogres do not, or do something in a way that dragon ogres don't, or at least could potentially do something in a way comparable to dragon ogres. That way there's a purpose and a meaningful choice. I'm not sure how that's done, but hamfistedly blocking off all the "good stuff" arbitrarily or nerfing it to the point where it just isn't good anymore doesn't feel like the right solution.

    Lastly, regarding MP, how exactly are the majority of units and strategies actually viable in MP? I don't play it but I was pretty sure there is a fairly substation amount of meta going on. If everything was viable then that wouldn't be the case. Obviously you can move outside of meta, play at a disadvantage, and overcome with skill but that applies to SP as well.
    Then keep screeching x unit is not viable, or mp made the game unplayble.

    And search for mysterious purposes of a unit.

    Because out side of x mechanics that buff chaos knights to the moon its not going to be a thing with caveat jext some one else plays say the empire sp start saying this mechanic os op it makes demis useless when they ahould beat chaos knights.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,766
    I wish the SP crowd would stop freaking out over minor stat adjustment. The amount of stat inflation you get from technologies, lord skills, traits, faction effects, items, and chevrons are through the roof.

    I'm playing an Azhag campaign and right now my buffs toward Big'Uns in his army look like this:
    • Ward Save: +8%
    • Armor: +22
    • MA: +22
    • MD: +19
    • WS: +52%
    • Speed: +22%
    • Charge: +10
    • Vigor reduction -20%
    • Leadership: +30
    • Frenzy
    • Vanguard Deploy
    Who cares what their baseline stats are against all that stat-creep?
  • hendo’hendo’ Registered Users Posts: 2,864
    edited November 2021

    Oh no.. someone call for back up- there’s dozens of mp players giving bad feedback!

    A little more serious, I dont think CA listens more to mp players than everyone else. That would be silly. MP feedback imo is powered by people who primarily don’t even play mp but watch mp and they just repeat whatever youtubers complaints because they lost a match and “x should not have beat y.”

    If you’re an actual mp player, great- even if you just watch mp matches -to each their own- but let’s not pretend your feedback is special and you have some unique perspective over others that don’t play or pretend they play mp. Just my opinion- but if you keep that outlook mp will remain in the gutter.
  • Rubz2293Rubz2293 Registered Users Posts: 520
    The mistake you are making is that CA doesn't really listen to anyone. Only when people are really banging down their door to they tend to listen.

    I am primarily a SP player, but I wish my gameplay was more like MP. Campaign is such a broken mess of overpowered and ridiculous things, I'm all for toning things down.
Sign In or Register to comment.