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

Unit balance in wh3

2»

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,276

    I think its very obvious that war3 faction army abilities are designed for arcade mode where as war 2 and 1 for proper battles

    Until some genius realizes that you don’t have to spend all your units fighting over caps for the first 5+ minutes of the battle if you don’t want to. In other words you can set your own pace to suit your racia bonus.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,243
    eumaies said:

    I think its very obvious that war3 faction army abilities are designed for arcade mode where as war 2 and 1 for proper battles

    Until some genius realizes that you don’t have to spend all your units fighting over caps for the first 5+ minutes of the battle if you don’t want to. In other words you can set your own pace to suit your racia bonus.
    If you think there be no fighting…ok sure oppoennt can just throw chaff at you so all your reserve units will never get it, im sure you can figure that out.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,276

    eumaies said:

    I think its very obvious that war3 faction army abilities are designed for arcade mode where as war 2 and 1 for proper battles

    Until some genius realizes that you don’t have to spend all your units fighting over caps for the first 5+ minutes of the battle if you don’t want to. In other words you can set your own pace to suit your racia bonus.
    If you think there be no fighting…ok sure oppoennt can just throw chaff at you so all your reserve units will never get it, im sure you can figure that out.
    It’s still a game about killing armies first and foremost. The early access players just haven’t internalized that yet. By all means throw your money away into my meat grinder and I will win.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Enticity is a top player though, and he's usually quick at coming up with nasty and extreme plays. I don't think he's ignorant of optimal ways to play the game. If anything they may hold back on abusive play since their job is to sell this stuff to the public.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • ForomarForomar Registered Users Posts: 38
    eumaies said:

    Dwarfs should have no problem at all. Ranged units and brave infantry will be great assets.

    On the Tzeentch barrier topic, I think what they will ultimately ideally do is let the units take 10% of the damage through the barrier. Then it's not infinite but still very strong.

    Then please tell me how dwarfs are expected to hold 2 out of 3 capture points, without literally being taken apart by most races?

    They just don't have any units that are great individually and:
    - cheap enough to throw away
    - able to retreat if something stronger comes over.
  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 855
    Dwarfs coming out of magic chaos fire portals... yeah no thanks
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,276
    Foromar said:

    eumaies said:

    Dwarfs should have no problem at all. Ranged units and brave infantry will be great assets.

    On the Tzeentch barrier topic, I think what they will ultimately ideally do is let the units take 10% of the damage through the barrier. Then it's not infinite but still very strong.

    Then please tell me how dwarfs are expected to hold 2 out of 3 capture points, without literally being taken apart by most races?

    They just don't have any units that are great individually and:
    - cheap enough to throw away
    - able to retreat if something stronger comes over.
    The distance between any two capture points is not much larger than double the range of your foot ranged units. You establish a position between two of them and lean in whichever direction your opponent is trying harder to contest.

    Meanwhile you sometime have a small fixed artillery position at your respawn point raining fire support.

    It’s classic dwarf daisy chain tactics just keep most of your units under cover of fire support of some kind.
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,558

    Dwarfs coming out of magic chaos fire portals... yeah no thanks

    Dwarfish rune magic has come a long way since game 2 :lol:
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 5,849
    edited February 1
    "Chaos" Dwarfs should be fine.

    Regular Dwarfs however i don't think so. Their vanguard units could once again have been the saving grace here; but them getting designed as low tier units that can't even beat Skeleton Spearmen in melee has come back again and hit us in the dongliz i guess. Same story with ranged troops: armored & shielded or not, they will still die to half health goblins in melee if caught without melee support and onion tactics. They are not Dwarf Warriors+ with ranged weapons as they were. Hardly even close.

    Just hope that they won't butcher the roster by adding SEMs and mobility from ancient lore blurbs instead of focusing on their character in order to make them better in this new mode. Good luck!
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,343
    edited February 1

    Enticity is a top player though, and he's usually quick at coming up with nasty and extreme plays. I don't think he's ignorant of optimal ways to play the game. If anything they may hold back on abusive play since their job is to sell this stuff to the public.

    We don't know who the top players in Total War Warhammer 3 are. The skillset required to excel is completely different and there is no guarantee players who are considered top-tier in land battles will be top-tier in Domination.

    New skills required in Domination mode:

    - Management of Victory Tickets (time management that is much more relevant than land battles)
    - Management of Reinforcements (including timing of reinforcements, units selected to reinforce, how reinforcements are batched, management of supplies)
    - Management of distance between capture points and how to contest/control them (unit composition and travel times for reinforcements)
    - Considerably more battlefield awareness in multiple different areas

    There is basically nothing established about the meta for game 3 at this point. Content creators all unanimously agreed that Chameleon Stalkers were a bad unit in pre-release, if they couldn't predict where a single unit would land in the meta in a gamemode they had played for years I highly doubt they will have come even close to identifying the meta of a game with as many changes as we are getting now. The thinking required in Domination mode is much more dynamic with far more relevant tactical decisions to make at different points (deciding what one single reinforcement unit should be is a bigger strategic decision than basically any decision made in the current land battle mode).

    Currently we have literally no idea who are the top tier players in TWW3 multiplayer. It is hugely exciting, tournaments are going to be very interesting especially amongst the existing tournament scene.

    EDIT: No shade intended on any of the content creators btw, been highly enjoying seeing their matches, hearing their opinions, and seeing their ideas for different matchups etc. But it is only when the broader playerbase gets their hands on this that we will find out the real meta.
    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,343
    Btw for the above I'm not saying existing skills around unit control, understanding how units interact, how units matchup, or all those sorts of existing skills won't be important as well. But the decision-making context these types of skills occur within is now much richer due to the Domination mode changes and I think having great unit control abilities while lacking the macro management skills I mention above will make it extremely difficult or near impossible to compete at the top level.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,243

    Enticity is a top player though, and he's usually quick at coming up with nasty and extreme plays. I don't think he's ignorant of optimal ways to play the game. If anything they may hold back on abusive play since their job is to sell this stuff to the public.

    We don't know who the top players in Total War Warhammer 3 are. The skillset required to excel is completely different and there is no guarantee players who are considered top-tier in land battles will be top-tier in Domination.

    New skills required in Domination mode:

    - Management of Victory Tickets (time management that is much more relevant than land battles)
    - Management of Reinforcements (including timing of reinforcements, units selected to reinforce, how reinforcements are batched, management of supplies)
    - Management of distance between capture points and how to contest/control them (unit composition and travel times for reinforcements)
    - Considerably more battlefield awareness in multiple different areas

    There is basically nothing established about the meta for game 3 at this point. Content creators all unanimously agreed that Chameleon Stalkers were a bad unit in pre-release, if they couldn't predict where a single unit would land in the meta in a gamemode they had played for years I highly doubt they will have come even close to identifying the meta of a game with as many changes as we are getting now. The thinking required in Domination mode is much more dynamic with far more relevant tactical decisions to make at different points (deciding what one single reinforcement unit should be is a bigger strategic decision than basically any decision made in the current land battle mode).

    Currently we have literally no idea who are the top tier players in TWW3 multiplayer. It is hugely exciting, tournaments are going to be very interesting especially amongst the existing tournament scene.

    EDIT: No shade intended on any of the content creators btw, been highly enjoying seeing their matches, hearing their opinions, and seeing their ideas for different matchups etc. But it is only when the broader playerbase gets their hands on this that we will find out the real meta.
    I do think the skills you point out are correct and the statement of who is who in war 3 is also true, but the 2nd part is way off, i think thinking required in domination is way simpler than land battles, which does not make it a bad thing it just means we might we see a lot more people who are considered top players in there due to the simplicity of it, focus in domiantion mode is more towards army management tactics as opposed to in battle tactics of land battles.
  • whymakemedothiswhymakemedothis Registered Users Posts: 117
    I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here.

    I can't think of any reason why a unit type would be good in land battles but not in domination as all the attributes which make a good unit in land battles will still apply in domination.

    Meanwhile there are units that are currently all but useless in land battles that will be useful in domination. For example the Grail Reliquae are extremely niche in land battles but in domination where you have to keep peasants in melee grinds or on capture points they'll be almost mandatory.

    I think another issue is that the combination of maps with choke points and only four showcased rosters that lack hard hitting fast melee units(70+ speed) leads itself to less flanking and more melee grinds. For example if you get stuck in melee at a choke point then it is going to take a long time for your slower flanking units to get around the terrain obstructions. This results in a situation where unless you began your flanking early your units won't arrive soon enough to be decisive.

    When the embargo on Slaanesh, Kislev and Ogres are lifted I think we will see more "battle tactics" as players have access to faster, more powerful, melee units which can flank. This will mean that players using the current armies will also have to start devoting more units to defending their flanks than they need to against their current opponents.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,343



    When the embargo on Slaanesh, Kislev and Ogres are lifted I think we will see more "battle tactics" as players have access to faster, more powerful, melee units which can flank. This will mean that players using the current armies will also have to start devoting more units to defending their flanks than they need to against their current opponents.

    Domination has more battle tactics than land battles by a wide-margin even now. Just compare any of the faction matchups in Domination vs Land battles and that is easy enough to see empirically.

    Here is a video from Indypride @ MilkandCookiesTW today:

    This battle was just a melee grind/blob fight with the occasional rear-charge. No idea how that can be seen as having more battle tactics than the same matchup in Domination mode, the big question of that match was "can Khorne kill the Great Unclean One blob?".

    The same matchup in Domination has players having to split their forces to contest multiple points, taking grindy engagements on capture points, repositioning to intercept enemy reinforcements, sniping targets that get isolated, etc. Far more diversity of battle tactics even before getting into the layer of decision-making added by the reinforcement mechanic.

    As soon as you start comparing two factions playing a land battle vs the same two factions playing a domination battle, the one involving more tactics is quite easy to see.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,276



    When the embargo on Slaanesh, Kislev and Ogres are lifted I think we will see more "battle tactics" as players have access to faster, more powerful, melee units which can flank. This will mean that players using the current armies will also have to start devoting more units to defending their flanks than they need to against their current opponents.

    Domination has more battle tactics than land battles by a wide-margin even now. Just compare any of the faction matchups in Domination vs Land battles and that is easy enough to see empirically.

    Here is a video from Indypride @ MilkandCookiesTW today:

    This battle was just a melee grind/blob fight with the occasional rear-charge. No idea how that can be seen as having more battle tactics than the same matchup in Domination mode, the big question of that match was "can Khorne kill the Great Unclean One blob?".

    The same matchup in Domination has players having to split their forces to contest multiple points, taking grindy engagements on capture points, repositioning to intercept enemy reinforcements, sniping targets that get isolated, etc. Far more diversity of battle tactics even before getting into the layer of decision-making added by the reinforcement mechanic.

    As soon as you start comparing two factions playing a land battle vs the same two factions playing a domination battle, the one involving more tactics is quite easy to see.
    To provide perhaps a more balanced comparison using this example... this was two factions with almost all melee and a SEM blob fight as well, going up against each other which does tend to make things simpler (in either game mode).

    Even so, the land battle had a number of things going for it, including a generally open map that made flanking more feasible than is sometimes feasible on the choke-pointier domination maps (not all of them, but some).

    More important, the land battle design led to the fielding of "full sized" armies in one area, which in turn added a critical timing component to the engagements. Failure in one area of such a formation fight leads to the collapse of the whole line as your army gets rolled up so how long a unit holds or lasts has an immediate tangible implication. Also, unit abilities directly affect that overall line fight and you have more choices in where to target your unit abilities for maximum effect because there are more engagements going on at one in one area.

    Now on the other hand, I do see and agree with the tactics of domination mode that you allude to. A fight happening on the other side of the field may not *feel* like it has immediate implications but it does, just takes some mental gymnastics to see how the timing of its resolution might affect the overall battlefield with different pieces reinforcing each other. In domination the whole battlefield and its timing is something you have to account for, and while the reinforcements can "feel" arbitrary and relentless to an observer, they follow a logic that players will ultimately have to get used to and account for.

    Now setting aside the debate about this, I think the things people are reacting to in domination mode are just a function of what has tended to happen in games:
    - People are taking small elite armies to start (I don't necessarily think they should) AND splitting up fairly early (i'm not sure they should) and the result is very tiny skirmish engagements where there is often little coordination between units of different types
    - People are rushing into and then permanently committing to fights early, with trickling reinforcements. I don't necessarily think they should, but this keeps fights small and thus less epic feeling than if they delayed engagements and fixated less on holding caps early.
    - Cap point grinding (due to people sitting more than I think they need to on cap points) leads to fights that feel messy and where there is rarely even a clear "rear" to your battle line to set up a nice clean flank attack on. You get some flanking attacks happening but it just looks like random noise rather than deliberate unit placement.

    In short I think the angst is a combination of smaller army fights as both sides keep the population down throughout and a series of behaviors which I tend to think aren't optimal. It's the equivalent of a land battle with 60% funds and then cut in 1/2 or 1/3 due to large distances between the units, which of course is going to look and feel less exciting. And then the later the game goes when unit counts get larger both sides get more desperate and just throw units at caps even if they're losing because they know it's a loss if they don't somehow come out on top.



  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,243
    Domination has more battle tactics than land battles by a wide-margin even now


    I would say opposite from what i seen, maybe more will show up once more factions are unlocked, but they do offer different ones and different things that are important. But what you wrote i dont find true.
  • whymakemedothiswhymakemedothis Registered Users Posts: 117
    @DaBoyzAreBackInTown in terms of the value of domination mode you're preaching to the converted.

    However to say either mode has more "battle tactics" is not being particularly generous to the other. If we say things like flank overloads, skirmish contingents etc. are what constitutes "battle tactics" then both modes have them in more than sufficient measure.

    Just generally I'm a big fan of Company of Heroes(eagerly awaiting game 3, hopefully this year) and no one complains about it's skirmish battles lacking "battle tactics" which makes those complaints aimed at domination mode which bears a striking resemblance to CoH/DoW skirmish battles ring hollow.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,243
    Just generally I'm a big fan of Company of Heroes(eagerly awaiting game 3, hopefully this year) and no one complains about it's skirmish battles lacking "battle tactics" which makes those complaints aimed at domination mode which bears a striking resemblance to CoH/DoW skirmish battles ring hollow.


    I think the current maps for Domination need work and things might be more the case in that regard.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,343
    edited February 2
    Imo what is being noticed by viewers is that Domination mode makes the caster's job much harder. Even with land battles where matches mostly revolve around one big engagement it wasn't uncommon to see casters ignore some game-deciding moment between lords or linch-pin units while doing a zoom-in on an engagement of zombies fighting spears or something like that. But it wasn't as big an issue because it was easy to get all the relevant information in one screen so viewers could figure out what was happening themselves (look at 6:17 for example)

    But now when terrain is far more important, maps are bigger, combat is far more spread, there is so many more different things to pay attention too, if you spend a large portion of the match focusing on the centre cap point watching SEM slug it out you are basically missing 66% of the battle (conservatively) and so it feels like nothing is happening when this is anything but the truth.

    Different casters are relatively more/less proficient at casting these battle from what I've seen. It is quite easy to get lost or think nothing is happening if the casters style is basically "let's watch centre point and whatever happens here" as that is how casting used to work (like in 6:17 above) because you could easily zoom-out a bit on the flat maps that were played on and show viewers the whole battle context. Whereas now it requires quite dynamic movement to keep track of 3 different points, many different individual engagements, reinforcements, supplies, victory tickets, and on top of that contextualising the whole thing into a single battle narrative (as all these things are occurring in one battle).

    I also think this explains why everyone I've heard who plays Domination mode seems to love it, but viewers seem rleatively more mixed. When playing you will naturally see and "feel" the whole battle, but when viewing whether or not it feels like a coherent viewing experience depends on the skill of the caster. I'm hoping that IndridCasts would do some battle casts tbh I have watched his replays of DoW2 and even though I've never played a single MP match of that game, I am always able to follow and understand what is going on as he is quite good at contextualising the entire battle (which is admittedly made easier by the better replay UI in that game).
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,243

    Imo what is being noticed by viewers is that Domination mode makes the caster's job much harder. Even with land battles where matches mostly revolve around one big engagement it wasn't uncommon to see casters ignore some game-deciding moment between lords or linch-pin units while doing a zoom-in on an engagement of zombies fighting spears or something like that. But it wasn't as big an issue because it was easy to get all the relevant information in one screen so viewers could figure out what was happening themselves (look at 6:17 for example)

    But now when terrain is far more important, maps are bigger, combat is far more spread, there is so many more different things to pay attention too, if you spend a large portion of the match focusing on the centre cap point watching SEM slug it out you are basically missing 66% of the battle (conservatively) and so it feels like nothing is happening when this is anything but the truth.

    Different casters are relatively more/less proficient at casting these battle from what I've seen. It is quite easy to get lost or think nothing is happening if the casters style is basically "let's watch centre point and whatever happens here" as that is how casting used to work (like in 6:17 above) because you could easily zoom-out a bit on the flat maps that were played on and show viewers the whole battle context. Whereas now it requires quite dynamic movement to keep track of 3 different points, many different individual engagements, reinforcements, and on top of that contextualising the whole thing into a single battle narrative (as all these things are occurring in one battle).

    I also think this explains why everyone I've heard who plays Domination mode seems to love it, but viewers seem far more mixed. When playing you will naturally see and "feel" the whole battle, but when viewing whether or not it feels like a coherent viewing experience depends on the skill of the caster. I'm hoping that IndridCasts would do some battle casts tbh I have watched his replays of DoW2 and even though I've never played a single MP match of that game, I am always able to follow and understand what is going on as he is quite good at contextualising the entire battle (which is admittedly made easier by the better replay UI in that game).

    Terrain is not more important, just happens that there is more terrain on those maps, if you have those maps in land battles it be just as important. I do think those maps suit domination more though. Agree with the rest
  • whymakemedothiswhymakemedothis Registered Users Posts: 117

    Just generally I'm a big fan of Company of Heroes(eagerly awaiting game 3, hopefully this year) and no one complains about it's skirmish battles lacking "battle tactics" which makes those complaints aimed at domination mode which bears a striking resemblance to CoH/DoW skirmish battles ring hollow.


    I think the current maps for Domination need work and things might be more the case in that regard.
    I agree to an extent. I don't have any major concerns with any of the existing maps I've seen on an individual level but there is a lack of variety as a whole. At least a couple of maps with less choke points and obstructions and more open terrain would be very welcome.
  • ViroshVirosh Registered Users Posts: 108

    snip

    DE will never get proper benefit from their MP on most of their units and neither will TK.

    Waghh might be fine since u control it when it goes off

    Quite the valid point, regarding Murderous Prowess and Realm of Souls - those 2 should see some form of rework in game 3, otherwise they would be close to useless.

    Maybe they'll change them to work in the same way as Waagh, with a meter to fill up, then being able to manually activate it, giving smaller bonuses for shorter periods of time, and then being able to re-fill the bar and re-activate it?

    Then again, TK's Realm might be a nightmare to balance, with the constant reinforcements trickling in, dying, and then filling your bar again.

    Honestly they should enable some of the old games races into that Domination mode, and let us see how they perform, that would clear up a lot of the current debates.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 5,849



    When the embargo on Slaanesh, Kislev and Ogres are lifted I think we will see more "battle tactics" as players have access to faster, more powerful, melee units which can flank. This will mean that players using the current armies will also have to start devoting more units to defending their flanks than they need to against their current opponents.

    .

    The same matchup in Domination has players having to split their forces to contest multiple points,
    And this is exactly one of the dislike points for me. Rather than a pair of big armies clashing, you get several smaller skirmishes with trickling units and emphasis on mobility. At least a single capture zone wouldn't have divided armies this much.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,343
    edited February 2



    When the embargo on Slaanesh, Kislev and Ogres are lifted I think we will see more "battle tactics" as players have access to faster, more powerful, melee units which can flank. This will mean that players using the current armies will also have to start devoting more units to defending their flanks than they need to against their current opponents.

    .

    The same matchup in Domination has players having to split their forces to contest multiple points,
    And this is exactly one of the dislike points for me. Rather than a pair of big armies clashing, you get several smaller skirmishes with trickling units and emphasis on mobility. At least a single capture zone wouldn't have divided armies this much.
    Fair enough, I can see the appeal of big armies too clashing as it is really cool and very "High Fantasy" which I'm a huge fan of.

    But even aside from the number of capture points, the big issue is you can't build a competitive multiplayer scene on top of blind-pick armies with no ability to alter army composition in-game. The vast majority of the potential playerbase for RTS/RTT style competitive multiplayer will not play such a game. Strategy games are having a bit of a cultural renaissance the last few years but the inflow into TWW MP was absolutely tiny despite so much support from CA/Youtubers/existing community and a big part of that is the core anti-competitive design on the current land battles of which blind-army-build is a big part. It is too intimidating for players at the intro level and it has too much luck involved in it for it to be appealing for competitive RTS/RTT players at the high level.

    I know the standard response to this is "there is no such thing as build roulette/build roulette is a myth/build roulette is a choice" but denying the problem exists isn't going to make it go away. So if players want battles with a more classic total war feel to be the competitive multiplayer mode (or at least have a chance of remaining one), what is needed is a way to resolve anti-competitive game design of blind pick.

    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,276
    One thing I think may need looking at in domination mode is the magic feels really strong in the early stages when armies are small. I would rather winds of magic starting pretty low given that the armies are starting small as well.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,243



    When the embargo on Slaanesh, Kislev and Ogres are lifted I think we will see more "battle tactics" as players have access to faster, more powerful, melee units which can flank. This will mean that players using the current armies will also have to start devoting more units to defending their flanks than they need to against their current opponents.

    .

    The same matchup in Domination has players having to split their forces to contest multiple points,
    And this is exactly one of the dislike points for me. Rather than a pair of big armies clashing, you get several smaller skirmishes with trickling units and emphasis on mobility. At least a single capture zone wouldn't have divided armies this much.
    Fair enough, I can see the appeal of big armies too clashing as it is really cool and very "High Fantasy" which I'm a huge fan of.

    But even aside from the number of capture points, the big issue is you can't build a competitive multiplayer scene on top of blind-pick armies with no ability to alter army composition in-game. The vast majority of the potential playerbase for RTS/RTT style competitive multiplayer will not play such a game. Strategy games are having a bit of a cultural renaissance the last few years but the inflow into TWW MP was absolutely tiny despite so much support from CA/Youtubers/existing community and a big part of that is the core anti-competitive design on the current land battles of which blind-army-build is a big part. It is too intimidating for players at the intro level and it has too much luck involved in it for it to be appealing for competitive RTS/RTT players at the high level.

    I know the standard response to this is "there is no such thing as build roulette/build roulette is a myth/build roulette is a choice" but denying the problem exists isn't going to make it go away. So if players want battles with a more classic total war feel to be the competitive multiplayer mode (or at least have a chance of remaining one), what is needed is a way to resolve anti-competitive game design of blind pick.

    What support form CA?

    And on what data you base this?

    The main reason its hard to grow is and always will be $$ requirement and unless that changes it always be the biggest limiting issue. There are plenty of games who released MP version only for a heavy discounted price and it worked.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,343



    When the embargo on Slaanesh, Kislev and Ogres are lifted I think we will see more "battle tactics" as players have access to faster, more powerful, melee units which can flank. This will mean that players using the current armies will also have to start devoting more units to defending their flanks than they need to against their current opponents.

    .

    The same matchup in Domination has players having to split their forces to contest multiple points,
    And this is exactly one of the dislike points for me. Rather than a pair of big armies clashing, you get several smaller skirmishes with trickling units and emphasis on mobility. At least a single capture zone wouldn't have divided armies this much.
    Fair enough, I can see the appeal of big armies too clashing as it is really cool and very "High Fantasy" which I'm a huge fan of.

    But even aside from the number of capture points, the big issue is you can't build a competitive multiplayer scene on top of blind-pick armies with no ability to alter army composition in-game. The vast majority of the potential playerbase for RTS/RTT style competitive multiplayer will not play such a game. Strategy games are having a bit of a cultural renaissance the last few years but the inflow into TWW MP was absolutely tiny despite so much support from CA/Youtubers/existing community and a big part of that is the core anti-competitive design on the current land battles of which blind-army-build is a big part. It is too intimidating for players at the intro level and it has too much luck involved in it for it to be appealing for competitive RTS/RTT players at the high level.

    I know the standard response to this is "there is no such thing as build roulette/build roulette is a myth/build roulette is a choice" but denying the problem exists isn't going to make it go away. So if players want battles with a more classic total war feel to be the competitive multiplayer mode (or at least have a chance of remaining one), what is needed is a way to resolve anti-competitive game design of blind pick.

    What support form CA?

    And on what data you base this?

    The main reason its hard to grow is and always will be $$ requirement and unless that changes it always be the biggest limiting issue. There are plenty of games who released MP version only for a heavy discounted price and it worked.
    Tournament funding, implementing tourney unit caps in game, tying half a dozen or more DLC releases with a multiplayer tournament, showing the world cup + all Everchosens on their official channel (with collectively in the millions of views).....

    There has been heaps of support, dollar requirements don't really have anything to do with it because the major issue is that CA has been entirely unable to convert the hundreds of thousands of campaign players into multiplayer players despite how much exposure they've given multiplayer over years.

    But blind army build is both far too punishing for new players getting into the game and simultaneously too much luck for high level play. I mean, players complain about how the RNG on the phoenix rebirth is an uncompetitive luck-based mechanic that shouldn't be in a strategy game but somehow both players building completely blind armies into each other isn't considered heavily luck dependent? Of course there is a large component of luck to that. And that is anathema to a proper high-level competitive scene
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,243
    I would not call that heaps of support if you account for how long the game has been out and the benefit it had for CA.

    Well i dont think the campaign player base is as large as people make it out to be compared to MP one. IT is larger but when you look at some of the data avalible (steam achievements) its not 20x more like people claim but about 5x more.

    Well the part about army building i understand where you're coming from when you word it like you did above and you know what i can see your point and even agree with it, i do think there could be alternative solutions to address this though, i do also think the blind pick of army aspect would be much less notacible to players if they did play vs players of similar skill level.

    I do think there could be ways to come up with a system that makes it less about guessing what you opponent has that still does not have to mean in game army adjustments. Even much better caps would help greatly.

    "blind armies into each other isn't considered heavily luck dependent" the only part i disagree with is this, because i think the game can reach such balance level and combined with player knowladge of the game it should mean that a faction should have few viable ways to play a match-up that never put them at auto loss.

    Players can also choose to go extreme and be hard countered but that is a choice and that choice will never disappear because even with in game reinforcements it is my choice to reinforce with stuff that helps but i could also choose to reinforce with stuff that does not help and say the game is unfair , just intend of pre game i did it in game.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    I don't think building your army before the match has anything to do with MP popularity. I mean you still do kind of.

    The entry barriers for competitive MP is wh2 its mainly the knowledge bank you need to build before you stand a chance of winning games. In addition to the $$$ you need to invest hundreds of hours watching YouTube battles, povs and tutorials in order to learn factions, how to control full armies efficiently, how mechanics, spells and abilities really work and how to execute tactics. The learning curve is steep indeed and the ones of us who played comp during the late phase of wh2 has spread out this learning over many years while new players have to catch up before they start to compete consistently.

    I guess domination tries to address this by letting worse players play longer games before they lose, and also create a game this is more simplistic in how it plays. With 3 flags you need to fight in melee on top you don't need to prepare for as many scenarios since every game more or less looks the same. So even if it's not necessity easier to execute, it's more repetitive and does not revolve around full army tactics but rather a stream off rock-scissor-paper summons, with comeback mechanics and respawns. So sure, it may mean that more people feel like they can participate, but the question is if the mode has any entertainment value in the long run as a player or at all for spectators. I know as a spectator this mode is doing nothing for me, though it may be fun to play for a little while maybe. It does however lack all the things that made me love wh2 in the first place. I played wh2 for years nonstop and not sc2 for a reason. This reason is gone for now unfortunately.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
Sign In or Register to comment.