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

Some tentative pros and cons of the MP game design and "balance" of tactics

2

Comments

  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 6,084
    I just noticed that you can summon a dead lord back to life as if nothing happened? That sounds awful to me, like in campaign when you kill a LL, he respawns back in few turns and comes back at you with a smug face again and again. But now in the very same battle? I like this reinforcement thing less and less.

    Experimenting is great, but let us simply have regular battles with a capture point without this weird mechanic while the experimentations go on.
  • Spellbound1875#4610Spellbound1875#4610 Registered Users Posts: 1,913

    I just noticed that you can summon a dead lord back to life as if nothing happened? That sounds awful to me, like in campaign when you kill a LL, he respawns back in few turns and comes back at you with a smug face again and again. But now in the very same battle? I like this reinforcement thing less and less.

    Experimenting is great, but let us simply have regular battles with a capture point without this weird mechanic while the experimentations go on.

    Eh I think the lord resummoning thing is a bit overblown given that by price it's hard to stomach and losing the lord in the first place puts you on the back foot immediately in game. I do think that abilities with cast limits shouldn't be refreshed by the resummon mechanic if they currently are (haven't seen many lords being resummoned in the games available) but otherwise I don't think it's a major concern and it has the benefit of discouraging lord sniping as a strategy.

    I do think we need to give players more time to feel this out first since currently a lot of suboptimal play can be observed even from very talented players (gauging how much to commit to defending or attacking a point is vital in the new game mode yet hard to determine intuitively for example).

    While land battles with a capture point should be an available option I think people writing off dominion are making judgments prematurely. Shifting the skills used in a game mode isn't inherently bad after all.

    As for how to make the capture system work in land battles just have it give a leadership penalty to the enemy units outside of the capture zone like the no land units after X amount of minutes have passed. This ends draw kiting and punishes players who are gaming the clock for WoM but still allows all mobility armies to function if they can close the game within a certain timeframe (something CA could determine by looking at data around average game times correlated with unit selection in multiplayer).
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,685

    I just noticed that you can summon a dead lord back to life as if nothing happened? That sounds awful to me, like in campaign when you kill a LL, he respawns back in few turns and comes back at you with a smug face again and again. But now in the very same battle? I like this reinforcement thing less and less.

    Experimenting is great, but let us simply have regular battles with a capture point without this weird mechanic while the experimentations go on.

    Eh I think the lord resummoning thing is a bit overblown given that by price it's hard to stomach and losing the lord in the first place puts you on the back foot immediately in game. I do think that abilities with cast limits shouldn't be refreshed by the resummon mechanic if they currently are (haven't seen many lords being resummoned in the games available) but otherwise I don't think it's a major concern and it has the benefit of discouraging lord sniping as a strategy.

    I do think we need to give players more time to feel this out first since currently a lot of suboptimal play can be observed even from very talented players (gauging how much to commit to defending or attacking a point is vital in the new game mode yet hard to determine intuitively for example).

    While land battles with a capture point should be an available option I think people writing off dominion are making judgments prematurely. Shifting the skills used in a game mode isn't inherently bad after all.

    As for how to make the capture system work in land battles just have it give a leadership penalty to the enemy units outside of the capture zone like the no land units after X amount of minutes have passed. This ends draw kiting and punishes players who are gaming the clock for WoM but still allows all mobility armies to function if they can close the game within a certain timeframe (something CA could determine by looking at data around average game times correlated with unit selection in multiplayer).
    lord respawnining might not be common now with how expensive the lords generally are, but game 2 factions have many cheap strong lords (fey, drycha etc etc). Also the game 3 heroes look cheap enough to replace pretty quickly.


  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,454
    Loupi_ said:

    I just noticed that you can summon a dead lord back to life as if nothing happened? That sounds awful to me, like in campaign when you kill a LL, he respawns back in few turns and comes back at you with a smug face again and again. But now in the very same battle? I like this reinforcement thing less and less.

    Experimenting is great, but let us simply have regular battles with a capture point without this weird mechanic while the experimentations go on.

    Eh I think the lord resummoning thing is a bit overblown given that by price it's hard to stomach and losing the lord in the first place puts you on the back foot immediately in game. I do think that abilities with cast limits shouldn't be refreshed by the resummon mechanic if they currently are (haven't seen many lords being resummoned in the games available) but otherwise I don't think it's a major concern and it has the benefit of discouraging lord sniping as a strategy.

    I do think we need to give players more time to feel this out first since currently a lot of suboptimal play can be observed even from very talented players (gauging how much to commit to defending or attacking a point is vital in the new game mode yet hard to determine intuitively for example).

    While land battles with a capture point should be an available option I think people writing off dominion are making judgments prematurely. Shifting the skills used in a game mode isn't inherently bad after all.

    As for how to make the capture system work in land battles just have it give a leadership penalty to the enemy units outside of the capture zone like the no land units after X amount of minutes have passed. This ends draw kiting and punishes players who are gaming the clock for WoM but still allows all mobility armies to function if they can close the game within a certain timeframe (something CA could determine by looking at data around average game times correlated with unit selection in multiplayer).
    lord respawnining might not be common now with how expensive the lords generally are, but game 2 factions have many cheap strong lords (fey, drycha etc etc). Also the game 3 heroes look cheap enough to replace pretty quickly.
    in this game mode, lords are just units like any replaceable spawnable unit. They don't want you to ever lose because you lost a key unit. They only want you to lose after you've exhausted enough time trying to seize objectives.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,454
    Watching some of these games again; I am think domination game mode should be quite good.

    You start with enough funds to have a real army; you have lots of choices but can use formations and tighter armies if you like. I think players were a bit too frantic but I think this is still basically a land battle with a timer.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,329
    edited January 29

    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    No, I think mostly people had very strong opinions about how exactly it was implemented.
    May i refresh your memory then:

    My post from Nov. 2020 [...] I have several suggestions to solve these.

    a) Make multiplayer objective based. Add a flag to capture in the middle of the map and already the enemy won't be able to simply run around the map for 20 minutes.[...]

    The answers:

    Outrage4:
    "All of the "cheesy builds" are nulified by unit caps already.

    [....]

    Full kite armies are rarely seen in tournaments because they are incredibly hard to execute against good players.
    "

    Lotus-Moon:
    "I palyed vs all infantry few tiems today, was so boring that i hope it never happens again, its heavily seems you are trying to force your idea of fun onto others"

    "Gotta say i 100% played vs more all infantry rush than vs any kind of draw kitting."

    Me in 2018:

    Though i think adding 1 objective on the map might favour other tanky factions too much, like Chaos Wariors or Dwarfs? Maybe holding multiple objectives at the same time or capturing them in a raw like some conquest game mode from Battlefield games, could be sort of fun, would also add diversity too map play, and allow for counterplay to some tankier factions.

    Answers:
    Yst:
    "Nah, enough of flagshogun, was a huge blessing it didnt carry over and make this flaghammer. Everything will simply turn on flag camping and spear circles there. If the camping in game isnt bad enough, it will turn the entire game into just that lol.

    Nothing but silvershield inf cheesing cap points, gonna be boring af tbh. For factions like vamps, they gonna have real lots of funs hitting cap points with multiple giants standing there. Then itll devolve into noobs qqing about their entire army getting wiped by pits lol........."

    Lotus Moon:
    "Shogun MP is different than Warhammer MP should not try make it the same, shogun was more about social MP from the sounds of it, warhammer at least TT was more about competitive MP while having seperate social MP side to it."

    Another proposition from nonentity:

    Place a capture point on the map (similar to the town square in sieges) and have a countdown timer when one player holds it uncontested.

    Answers:

    Lotus Moon:
    "This has been discussed numerous times, but this is not a solution it just fixes that issue but creates new ones.

    It also makes most of the battlefield irrelevant, what the point of forests around the map if all you need to do is stay in the middle, might as-well make all battle fields super small or just have 1 battle field only, terrain would be of no importance with cupture point in the middle."

    "There were other arguments such as not the whole map being used, i think there are other solutions than capture point which are better as stated in that thread."

    "Whats preventing me from bringing an extremly boxy army than waiting in the forest until the capture point appears to thsn go on top of it and win?"

    "allariel, 4 treekin, 2 treemen, ROR spearmen some archers camping in the middles preventing the opponent from entering the zone, this is going to be fun....

    Like the previous solution this encourages boxed up armies to stay in the middle, it discourages the use of the whole map it also makes terrain features on certain maps worthless, there is nothing wrong with camping terrain at the moment but under this system you're forced to contest the middle or simply loose the game.."

    also
    "There is an issue with rampage at 20min, if opponent has lots missiles you just run away for 20min than win by forcing his units to rampage into combat."

    "Capture points also make 90% of the map irrelevant.

    Its a bad system and you keep pushing it for some reason. Capture points have plenty of flaws and promote static game play and increase ways to win through cheesing. [..]

    I think this idea is flowed greatly."

    "Capture point is in middle, no reason to move away from middle common sense logic applies here. One army camps it the other either goes and fights it or looses the game, why would you use the rest of the map? If the objective is in the middle.
    If your getting drawn out of position you simply regroup into the middle.

    Your wrong actually i always attack people with my mobile armies and i have means to make them move through ranged fire, if they stand still i will create enough of an advantage to win from it, i could not vs a box though.

    Its tank builds that would currently mot be able to win but can under your system.

    You can test it with other i think its total waste of time i did blob armies plenty of times before and its boring way to win under this system it just promotes those builds."

    Sarmatianns:

    "It's a bad idea. It boosts factions like dwarfs and in general makes 'tankiness' the most desirable attribute.

    Factions that rely on mobility and hit&run and similar stuff would be severely handicapped by this rule."

    "What you don't seem to understand how fundamentaly you change the entire gameplay if you suddenly motivate people not to build their army to kill the enemy but to outlast the enemy.

    I'd rather suffer a few drawkiters than have a system which encourages EVERY MATCH to be a slow 20 minutes brawl."

    Some of these were under YOUR thread. Doesn't sound like healthy ideas on implemtation of capture points - more like, some people don't like the idea, becouse they love mobile kite play.
    Because your suggestion was bad, you wanted 1 point in the middile.

    Differance is that everyone wanted Capture points just NOT the way you suggested, most people wanted 3 etc, you can find me repplying in eumies thread about how i think they should be added, so just becasue i though your suggestion was bad does not mean i did not support capture points.

    I also though there are better solutions possible, but if alternative is nothing i choose capture points. Domination is simply not warhammer
  • GeneralConfusionGeneralConfusion Registered Users Posts: 1,099
    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    I just noticed that you can summon a dead lord back to life as if nothing happened? That sounds awful to me, like in campaign when you kill a LL, he respawns back in few turns and comes back at you with a smug face again and again. But now in the very same battle? I like this reinforcement thing less and less.

    Experimenting is great, but let us simply have regular battles with a capture point without this weird mechanic while the experimentations go on.

    Eh I think the lord resummoning thing is a bit overblown given that by price it's hard to stomach and losing the lord in the first place puts you on the back foot immediately in game. I do think that abilities with cast limits shouldn't be refreshed by the resummon mechanic if they currently are (haven't seen many lords being resummoned in the games available) but otherwise I don't think it's a major concern and it has the benefit of discouraging lord sniping as a strategy.

    I do think we need to give players more time to feel this out first since currently a lot of suboptimal play can be observed even from very talented players (gauging how much to commit to defending or attacking a point is vital in the new game mode yet hard to determine intuitively for example).

    While land battles with a capture point should be an available option I think people writing off dominion are making judgments prematurely. Shifting the skills used in a game mode isn't inherently bad after all.

    As for how to make the capture system work in land battles just have it give a leadership penalty to the enemy units outside of the capture zone like the no land units after X amount of minutes have passed. This ends draw kiting and punishes players who are gaming the clock for WoM but still allows all mobility armies to function if they can close the game within a certain timeframe (something CA could determine by looking at data around average game times correlated with unit selection in multiplayer).
    lord respawnining might not be common now with how expensive the lords generally are, but game 2 factions have many cheap strong lords (fey, drycha etc etc). Also the game 3 heroes look cheap enough to replace pretty quickly.
    in this game mode, lords are just units like any replaceable spawnable unit. They don't want you to ever lose because you lost a key unit. They only want you to lose after you've exhausted enough time trying to seize objectives.
    This, definitely. Domination is fundamentally a game about time management; the only way to win is to get 5000 victory points before your opponent, and the only way to lose is for your opponent to get those 5000 points before you.

    Now, killing units is obviously still really important, because bringing in reinforcements costs supply and supply costs time, and time on capture points is how you generate victory points. Losing a unit - even a cheap one - means you're fighting at a disadvantage for X number of seconds, where X is the time it takes to generate the points to replace it, call in the reinforcement unit, and move it to somewhere it can affect the battle. Because of the respawn mechanic you're never going to actually, literally run out of units, but if you get outtraded and lose more units than your opponent you quickly find yourself in a position where you can't compete anymore, because you don't have as much power on the field as they do.

    It's definitely a different kind of game than TWW2 was, but I think it's an interesting and actually more tactical one.
  • SullatellaSullatella Registered Users Posts: 13
    Well they need make time to kill lower. So then at least units ends (sometimes) before victory points got capped. Oh, and make victory points for killing enemy units (at least what they almost made in Total War Arena, after community asked it for a year). But TTK should be lower.
  • GeneralConfusionGeneralConfusion Registered Users Posts: 1,099

    Well they need make time to kill lower. So then at least units ends (sometimes) before victory points got capped. Oh, and make victory points for killing enemy units (at least what they almost made in Total War Arena, after community asked it for a year). But TTK should be lower.

    I don't think they're going to add VPs for kills; that would reduce or even negate the centrality of the capture points, which is a major part of the game's design. Making units more fragile game-wide might be interesting, but I don't think I'm ready to weigh in on that until I've been playing for a few weeks at least.
  • griffithx#1314griffithx#1314 Registered Users Posts: 1,502
    Loupi_ said:

    I just noticed that you can summon a dead lord back to life as if nothing happened? That sounds awful to me, like in campaign when you kill a LL, he respawns back in few turns and comes back at you with a smug face again and again. But now in the very same battle? I like this reinforcement thing less and less.

    Experimenting is great, but let us simply have regular battles with a capture point without this weird mechanic while the experimentations go on.

    Eh I think the lord resummoning thing is a bit overblown given that by price it's hard to stomach and losing the lord in the first place puts you on the back foot immediately in game. I do think that abilities with cast limits shouldn't be refreshed by the resummon mechanic if they currently are (haven't seen many lords being resummoned in the games available) but otherwise I don't think it's a major concern and it has the benefit of discouraging lord sniping as a strategy.

    I do think we need to give players more time to feel this out first since currently a lot of suboptimal play can be observed even from very talented players (gauging how much to commit to defending or attacking a point is vital in the new game mode yet hard to determine intuitively for example).

    While land battles with a capture point should be an available option I think people writing off dominion are making judgments prematurely. Shifting the skills used in a game mode isn't inherently bad after all.

    As for how to make the capture system work in land battles just have it give a leadership penalty to the enemy units outside of the capture zone like the no land units after X amount of minutes have passed. This ends draw kiting and punishes players who are gaming the clock for WoM but still allows all mobility armies to function if they can close the game within a certain timeframe (something CA could determine by looking at data around average game times correlated with unit selection in multiplayer).
    lord respawnining might not be common now with how expensive the lords generally are, but game 2 factions have many cheap strong lords (fey, drycha etc etc). Also the game 3 heroes look cheap enough to replace pretty quickly.
    Along with having to pay the full price for the Lord/Hero again isn't there also a wait timer that dictates when you can pay for the lord/hero again?
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 522
    As someone who will never play multiplayer battles and only play campaign I think the capture points are a lot more fun from a viewing perspective. Especially when watching on Turins channel, it spices up things more, especially the domination thing and is a lot more fun to watch.

    I have seen a few kite builds and is not fun to watch. Also it is more fun to watch when there actually is a lot of infantry fighting, the more elite the better. Viewing wise the domination/capture flag way is the correct approach. Player wise? I don't really care since I will not play it.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031



    The specific example you gave recreated the same toxic kiteplay we have now so I wasn't a fan. But in principle, there could be a design for capture points in some games where it would make sense for shooting to stop capping points.

    It totally did not, you guys just always seem to struggle when it comes to predicting outcomes of suggested changes, and you always assume bad intentions.

    What it would mean is that you need to zone out ranged units like 100 meters from the zone you're trying to control. It raises the requirement to claim control a little but, that's all, but on the positive side it leads to intuitive gameplay where ranged units are never forced to suicide into melee.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,369
    edited January 29



    The specific example you gave recreated the same toxic kiteplay we have now so I wasn't a fan. But in principle, there could be a design for capture points in some games where it would make sense for shooting to stop capping points.

    It totally did not, you guys just always seem to struggle when it comes to predicting outcomes of suggested changes, and you always assume bad intentions.

    What it would mean is that you need to zone out ranged units like 100 meters from the zone you're trying to control. It raises the requirement to claim control a little but, that's all, but on the positive side it leads to intuitive gameplay where ranged units are never forced to suicide into melee.
    This is unfair, I don't always assume bad intentions.

    More often than not the root cause is plain old incompetence.

  • Sindri_TWACSindri_TWAC Registered Users Posts: 157

    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    Yea but the track record of the people rooting against Domination is embarrassingly bad at this point. So bad it almost beggars belief:

    - "Kite builds are a legitimate strategy and important part of good gameplay"

    > Domination Mode functionally removes kite builds from the game. 99% of players outside this forum rejoice and comments are literally filled with new players saying they will try MP now.

    - "Build roulette is a myth and even if it wasn't reinforcements couldn't fix it. It is simply impossible"

    > Devs acknowledge they see build roulette as a problem, reinforcements clearly resolve it.

    - "Tournaments will still use campaign land battles"

    > Every Youtuber thus far who has played Domination has said they are using it for Tournaments with the old style being at best an occasional "flavour tourney" like FFA.

    And now apparently:

    - "the real most popular mode would be what we have now but with CP. Please CA use dev time and effort doing this".

    Frankly, if I were CA reading these boards trying to gauge how to best use dev hours to support the multiplayer scene, I would move "land battles with CP" into the folder marked "ideas not to touch with a one hundred foot pole" based on the track record of the players asking for it.
    What i find particulary intresting is, that people, who thrown away any word on cap points or any other consistent fix on draw kiting in the past, are now asking for land battles with capture points. Why not stay consistent and demand land battles from wh2 to stay a ranking MP mode?

    In reality it is as simpe as that though -we have seen only couple of matches so far in a game mode, none of us themselves played with factions none of us really knows. Show a Wh 2 match to someone, who sees it for the first time- and he won't be impressed at all. It's a niche thing, that we are all just used to. We love watching replays and tourneys mostly becouse we know, how the game and MP in particular functions. I reserve the final judgement on Domination for the future, but can already say, that barely anything could be worse, then a game without any rules at all, becouse rules kind of make any game, what it is.
    Obviously because everyone came around in believing cap points were a good and necessary solution to draw kiting and other issues with land battles and to avoid complex tournament rules. I mean people are allowed to reach a consensus on something even though they may have complained or had other suggestions in the past.

    As for what "someone" would like, I think lots of players of Total War would look at Land battles and say "that's the kind of battles I enjoy in campaign".

    Now Domination doesn't have to be too different from that; it really comes down to the details of implementation. But since Land Battles are a supported game mode, it only makes sense they should have some internal logic to them, just like Sieges and FFA do.
    Well it realy actualy might spoil it to some players. I honestly don't understand why would players, who prefer Wh2 styled battles need capture point in normal land battles now? Since "only noobs get draw kited" and "only 200 IQ people can use flying SEM in combination with cav and skirmishers" anyway.
    You haven't paid attention it seems. I even made my own suggestion of how Domination could be implemented waaaay back, but it's hard to find it now with the search function because I called it "domination" as well...

    There has always been a good reason to have an alternative way to end non-participation matches. I think more or less everyone agrees, but there are different opinions about the details how it's best implemented.
    Yeah i paid attention alright. I recall- "Make it so infantry can't capture point as long it's beeing shot at". Sounds strange to say the least, but the intention is obvious.....
    No, it makes perfect sense. Even orclads said afterwards that he changed his mind on it and agrees with it.
    Not what I said at all just what you heard.

    I said (paraphrasing) "I have changed my mind that there can never be a justification for ranged attacks stopping capping points it depends on overall implementation".

    The specific example you gave was terrible and recreated the same toxic kiteplay we have now. But in principle, there could be a design for capture points in some games where it would make sense for shooting to stop capping points.
    It might make sense for a unit with very low leadership not beeing able to contest a capture point. And leadership might be lowered by consistant ranged attacks.

    eumaies said:

    saweendra said:

    as a former dwarf aka proto skaven and Now champion of the Maw @mightygloin said put a single CP in land maps done deal of actually fixing many of its issues .

    It has been proposed million times, and each time there were people, who found million arguments against it, even saying, this would be a terrible idea. Mostly thouse, who now root against Domination mode btw.
    No, I think mostly people had very strong opinions about how exactly it was implemented.
    May i refresh your memory then:

    My post from Nov. 2020 [...] I have several suggestions to solve these.

    a) Make multiplayer objective based. Add a flag to capture in the middle of the map and already the enemy won't be able to simply run around the map for 20 minutes.[...]

    The answers:

    Outrage4:
    "All of the "cheesy builds" are nulified by unit caps already.

    [....]

    Full kite armies are rarely seen in tournaments because they are incredibly hard to execute against good players.
    "

    Lotus-Moon:
    "I palyed vs all infantry few tiems today, was so boring that i hope it never happens again, its heavily seems you are trying to force your idea of fun onto others"

    "Gotta say i 100% played vs more all infantry rush than vs any kind of draw kitting."

    Me in 2018:

    Though i think adding 1 objective on the map might favour other tanky factions too much, like Chaos Wariors or Dwarfs? Maybe holding multiple objectives at the same time or capturing them in a raw like some conquest game mode from Battlefield games, could be sort of fun, would also add diversity too map play, and allow for counterplay to some tankier factions.

    Answers:
    Yst:
    "Nah, enough of flagshogun, was a huge blessing it didnt carry over and make this flaghammer. Everything will simply turn on flag camping and spear circles there. If the camping in game isnt bad enough, it will turn the entire game into just that lol.

    Nothing but silvershield inf cheesing cap points, gonna be boring af tbh. For factions like vamps, they gonna have real lots of funs hitting cap points with multiple giants standing there. Then itll devolve into noobs qqing about their entire army getting wiped by pits lol........."

    Lotus Moon:
    "Shogun MP is different than Warhammer MP should not try make it the same, shogun was more about social MP from the sounds of it, warhammer at least TT was more about competitive MP while having seperate social MP side to it."

    Another proposition from nonentity:

    Place a capture point on the map (similar to the town square in sieges) and have a countdown timer when one player holds it uncontested.

    Answers:

    Lotus Moon:
    "This has been discussed numerous times, but this is not a solution it just fixes that issue but creates new ones.

    It also makes most of the battlefield irrelevant, what the point of forests around the map if all you need to do is stay in the middle, might as-well make all battle fields super small or just have 1 battle field only, terrain would be of no importance with cupture point in the middle."

    "There were other arguments such as not the whole map being used, i think there are other solutions than capture point which are better as stated in that thread."

    "Whats preventing me from bringing an extremly boxy army than waiting in the forest until the capture point appears to thsn go on top of it and win?"

    "allariel, 4 treekin, 2 treemen, ROR spearmen some archers camping in the middles preventing the opponent from entering the zone, this is going to be fun....

    Like the previous solution this encourages boxed up armies to stay in the middle, it discourages the use of the whole map it also makes terrain features on certain maps worthless, there is nothing wrong with camping terrain at the moment but under this system you're forced to contest the middle or simply loose the game.."

    also
    "There is an issue with rampage at 20min, if opponent has lots missiles you just run away for 20min than win by forcing his units to rampage into combat."

    "Capture points also make 90% of the map irrelevant.

    Its a bad system and you keep pushing it for some reason. Capture points have plenty of flaws and promote static game play and increase ways to win through cheesing. [..]

    I think this idea is flowed greatly."

    "Capture point is in middle, no reason to move away from middle common sense logic applies here. One army camps it the other either goes and fights it or looses the game, why would you use the rest of the map? If the objective is in the middle.
    If your getting drawn out of position you simply regroup into the middle.

    Your wrong actually i always attack people with my mobile armies and i have means to make them move through ranged fire, if they stand still i will create enough of an advantage to win from it, i could not vs a box though.

    Its tank builds that would currently mot be able to win but can under your system.

    You can test it with other i think its total waste of time i did blob armies plenty of times before and its boring way to win under this system it just promotes those builds."

    Sarmatianns:

    "It's a bad idea. It boosts factions like dwarfs and in general makes 'tankiness' the most desirable attribute.

    Factions that rely on mobility and hit&run and similar stuff would be severely handicapped by this rule."

    "What you don't seem to understand how fundamentaly you change the entire gameplay if you suddenly motivate people not to build their army to kill the enemy but to outlast the enemy.

    I'd rather suffer a few drawkiters than have a system which encourages EVERY MATCH to be a slow 20 minutes brawl."

    Some of these were under YOUR thread. Doesn't sound like healthy ideas on implemtation of capture points - more like, some people don't like the idea, becouse they love mobile kite play.
    Because your suggestion was bad, you wanted 1 point in the middile.

    Differance is that everyone wanted Capture points just NOT the way you suggested, most people wanted 3 etc, you can find me repplying in eumies thread about how i think they should be added, so just becasue i though your suggestion was bad does not mean i did not support capture points.

    I also though there are better solutions possible, but if alternative is nothing i choose capture points. Domination is simply not warhammer
    Ok, sorry i will have to repeat specially for you, since you obviously did not read:

    My suggestion from 2018

    "Though i think adding 1 objective on the map might favour other tanky factions too much, like Chaos Wariors or Dwarfs? Maybe holding multiple objectives at the same time or capturing them in a raw like some conquest game mode from Battlefield games, could be sort of fun, would also add diversity too map play, and allow for counterplay to some tankier factions."

    -you said, you don't want a TW:Shogun Warhammer. In other thread you tried to push some ideas on capture points, like having 2 on the opposite side of the map, but in the end admited it was pointless anyway, since it favoures mobile armies over boxed ones, and 1 point favoures boxed ones over mobile ones. Also never ever have you on my memoby opened a thread on this topic yourself before dominationed started to threat your playstyle. Conclusion of the collective discussion (not your personal) - everything's bad suggestions, draw kiting is a legit game mechanic, If you lose with a box it's your own fault, and please let us just ignore dwarfs and their shourt legs.

    In my eyes, now as you look at the domination mode and hate it, obviously becouse it doesn't fit your playstyle - you try to grasp onto something to atleast partly save "the old ways" in hope, that land battles with capture points might become more popular than domination mode. If there was no Domination mode, and everything stayed the same - and if then i or eumaies or anyone else dared to show around and suggest a change in the direction of capture points or some other win conditions- you would have been one amongst the first to show around and bash on it.
  • Sindri_TWACSindri_TWAC Registered Users Posts: 157
    edited January 29



    The specific example you gave recreated the same toxic kiteplay we have now so I wasn't a fan. But in principle, there could be a design for capture points in some games where it would make sense for shooting to stop capping points.

    It totally did not, you guys just always seem to struggle when it comes to predicting outcomes of suggested changes, and you always assume bad intentions.

    What it would mean is that you need to zone out ranged units like 100 meters from the zone you're trying to control. It raises the requirement to claim control a little but, that's all, but on the positive side it leads to intuitive gameplay where ranged units are never forced to suicide into melee.
    Nobody forces ranged units into melee. Take your own melee units maybe and don't play only with ranged- does that make sense? You can still use ranged to deal damage- and every faction has atleast 1 infantry unit that can somewhat hold a line.
  • griffithx#1314griffithx#1314 Registered Users Posts: 1,502

    Well they need make time to kill lower. So then at least units ends (sometimes) before victory points got capped. Oh, and make victory points for killing enemy units (at least what they almost made in Total War Arena, after community asked it for a year). But TTK should be lower.

    You don't get victory points for killing but I believe you get more points to buy reinforcements for damage done/killing.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,454
    By the way if they wanted to make land battles playable in competitive play they wouldn’t have to fundamentally change anything or any old maps. Just make ~10 new maps with a capture point setting and those would let people play land battles with an actual win condition to prevent draws.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 2,006
    Eumaies, exactly right

    And I really really hope CA are alert to this. I'd love there to still be an option for quick battles with cap points to ensure engagements.

    It really really shouldn't be hard to do.

    I don't particularly want to lose the classic force on force Deathmatch it's TW to me.

    I like having other modes it's great having variety but not at cost to other areas.
  • IzmaethIzmaeth Registered Users Posts: 14
    eumaies said:


    - Much, but not all, of the Domination games showcased so far have seen players in a rather chicken-with-head-cut-off frantic rush to contest capture points. Maybe this is just nerves, inexperience, excitement, or incorrect assumptions around what you have to do to win, but Domination will be a lot better if making deliberate decisions and gathering forces when appropriate is a significant part of the gameplay. It could be that is what more experienced players will start to do, or it could be that something about the pace of the capturing or converting enemy CP control is overly incentivizing players to scrap for every second of cap point time to the exclusion of deliberate planning. The jury is still out, but I think it's something to watch for.

    I think this is the part, that what will make or break this mode. What I love about this game is different play styles and different strategies. And even though new game mode is fresh and interesting right now, if it's going to devolve mostly into point rushing and blob fights on the middle, it'll get boring very quickly.
    In my opinion main culprit is how victory points are awarded. CA shouldn't really try to invent the wheel again. There are mechanics out there that work perfectly fine (like DoH/CoH).
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 962
    I don’t know why they didn’t just make a death match mode with ffa point system and capture point system as one it felt like an obvious solution to me.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,454
    Another possibility with domination mode actually is that it won’t appeal to many new players at all. It’s actually quite a learning curve for a campaign player to have to learn an entirely new mode with unit teleportation summmoning and win conditions. It may actually be very intimidating.
  • DaDokisinXDaDokisinX Registered Users Posts: 54
    eumaies said:

    Another possibility with domination mode actually is that it won’t appeal to many new players at all. It’s actually quite a learning curve for a campaign player to have to learn an entirely new mode with unit teleportation summmoning and win conditions. It may actually be very intimidating.

    Pretty much every game is daunting for new players to learn that's not candy crush or monopoly, to say nothing of strategy games.

    The first game of total war I played (after many years of other PC games) I was overwhelmed with all the new mechanics. IMHO the fact that you don't need to manage an entire army in Dom mode right away would've appealing to me as a new player, and to newcomers as a whole
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,369
    eumaies said:

    Another possibility with domination mode actually is that it won’t appeal to many new players at all. It’s actually quite a learning curve for a campaign player to have to learn an entirely new mode with unit teleportation summmoning and win conditions. It may actually be very intimidating.

    As far as multiplayer mechanics go, Domination is still basic compared to other RTS games.

    Off the top of my head:

    - Dawn of War 2 (10 years old)
    - Iron Harvest
    - AOE4
    - Spellforce 3
    - Starcraft 2

    All have much deeper gameplay mechanics than capture points and reinforcements represent for Domination mode. Whether or not it attracts more campaign players is an unknown, but if it doesn't I really don't think it will be because the mechanics are too complicated. Tbh I think if they can learn sieges and survival battles they will be just fine.

    The hard part about this game is still the same, the huge number of rosters and diverse unit types within them. And then the large number of matchups this leads too. That is what reinforcements directly addresses.

    In terms of attracting players who are multiplayer RTS players first and foremost, Domination is far more attractive simply because reinforcements mean you can't lose a battle on a cointoss in the army selection screen. More than anything else, strategy players HATE the feel of losing because of luck. And it happens quite a lot in the current gamemode.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,454
    Interesting assumption about the future player base - not current campaign players but a whole new population who find this better than similar games. I suppose it’s possible.

    The other theory is that land battles properly supported would entice more campaign players who love war hammer to actually also enjoy mp.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    A lot of players have been very interested/entertained by tournament games and events like faction wars. More players than actually play the tournaments, or quick battles. Its hard to guess how many of these would be possible to get into playing any competitive MP mode because they may simply be casual players who don't enjoy a competitive environment. Some of them though are probably held back by the old state of qp ladder, and this could be addressed my improved landbattle game mode plus some other changes that are regardless good for the game. The good thing with this class of players is that they are "loyal fans" that are attached to the ip.

    The attempt to recruit from the rts genre i could understand if its just a cash grab to try to sell the game to new customers that would otherwise not buy the game while the loyal customers will still buy it even if they hate the new MP mode. However, the rts crowd is more mobile and may not stick around there as long as there is a better rts game out there that they rather play. Is this something to build wh3 future on? I doubt domination can really compete with aaa rts titles in the long run if they alienate their loyal niche fanbase.

    So I'd start developing improved land battles right away.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • tank3487tank3487 Member Registered Users Posts: 2,482

    I just noticed that you can summon a dead lord back to life as if nothing happened? That sounds awful to me, like in campaign when you kill a LL, he respawns back in few turns and comes back at you with a smug face again and again. But now in the very same battle? I like this reinforcement thing less and less.

    Lord re summon are actually not that bad thing. WH1 and WH2 were plagued by Lord snipe centric builds, quite heavy. For gameplay, it is actually can be positive change.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    The King is dead, long live the (same) King!
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Tbh it would make more sense if you could pick a generic lord as reinforcements but never resurrect a dead LL.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • littlenuke#9412littlenuke#9412 Registered Users Posts: 855
    edited February 8
    When thorgrim dies so you just buy a new one

    Image removed.
    Post edited by dge1 on
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N

  • vindicarexvindicarex Registered Users Posts: 121
    edited February 6
    I mean sure, it's somewhat immersion breaking, but make no mistake - losing a 2k-3.5k LL is still a huge setback (that's gold that could otherwise be spent on a net gain of units, not simply replacing units that you start the game with). Theoretically, this gives your opponent a huge army advantage (unless the Lord somehow did damage equal to his value, but that seems pretty rare).
    - personally, my immersion is broken every time I see WoC players spam marauder horsemen/horsemasters, manticores, and chaff frontline (maybe they take forsaken or spawn or something too). I never see my lovable chosen anywhere in competitive play. If "reviving" your lord is the cost of increasing viable builds and unit variety on the field, that's fine with me.

    In DoW2, replacing your hero in 1v1 is rather forgiving with a relatively low Requisition cost, but it's still considered pretty bad because you are basically down at least a net 250 requisition for a unit that you essentially start with for free, who is not providing any value while dead, and that requisition can't be used on other new squads now.
Sign In or Register to comment.