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

Tech and skill trees

MooncakeMooncake Registered Users Posts: 658
It isn't something that has been brought up much due to the massive amount of issues this game has, but I find the current state of tech and skills impacting my enjoyment much more than I thought it would. It is a disappointment I didn't expect at all going in, and for most factions things are in a BAD state.

I can understand wanting to tone down the buff stacking available to players, but this is just an under designed mess. You can randomly click on techs and it will have no impact on your gameplay at all for factions like Kislev and Cathay, while Slaanesh has only a couple good techs.

Just another aspect leading me to believe this game should have been delayed again.

Comments

  • KhorneFlakesKhorneFlakes Registered Users Posts: 4,003
    Biggest outliers is tech dedicated to give generic lord of change,bloodthirster,GUO,KOS...etc
    more spells? when you already have casters in most armies why would anyone cast magic from them let alone waste tech tree.

    IF it was limited use bound spells like Heirotitan,Wood elf turtle ogres and doomfire warlocks then it would have been great.
    and the buffs are soooo minor like you said and some times contradicting its like there is no point in investing in tech trees

  • Kn_Gars#2718Kn_Gars#2718 Registered Users Posts: 3,275
    While there are some issues with the tech trees I've experienced so far choice is still superior to random clicks. The thing is that Warhammer 2 had some massivly OP skills and techs for certain races and lords. Now I mainly play Empire so the limited impact of the tech tree feels pretty familiar to me but I do get that it feels pretty bad if you are used to mostly playing with the OP factions in WH2.
    The user formerly known as KN_Gars, thanks for the involunatry rename CA.
  • MooncakeMooncake Registered Users Posts: 658
    edited February 21
    It isn't a matter of being OP or not. A 5 bonus to growth or 3% boost to a stat is completely meaningless. At that point why even add tech trees as a game mechanic? Or do you consider it to be overpowered when these things are meaningful points of progression in a campaign?
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,303
    nope they need to tone down all the wh 1 and 2 factions skill trees and tech trees

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • MooncakeMooncake Registered Users Posts: 658
    saweendra said:

    nope they need to tone down all the wh 1 and 2 factions skill trees and tech trees

    I feel like you have not looked at these techs. are you suggesting they should be toned down to the point where they DO LITERALLY NOTHING, like 80% of WH3 techs? Why?
  • Serkelet#1834Serkelet#1834 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,074
    I think some skills, like downgrading melee attack and defence in the red skill tree to 6 from 8 seems reasonable, but there are some baffling choices, like the Cathayan veterancy red skills.
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,896
    edited February 21
    Mooncake said:


    I can understand wanting to tone down the buff stacking available to players.

    This is exactly why it had to be done.

    In the long term restraint in campaign buffs makes the campaigns more interesting and fun.

    The amount of buff stacking that happened in WH2 made the campaigns effectively trivial by mid game.

    " 3% boost to a stat is completely meaningless."

    Consider that from various sources you'll probably get 5 to 10 such 3% boosts to stats by mid-campaign. If it was a 10% boost your units are now 50 to 100% better which is utterly broken.


    To be honest I'm amazed that CA did the right thing here. I knew there'd be pushback.
  • aMint1#4859aMint1#4859 Registered Users Posts: 1,243
    A little bit of A; a little bit of B.

    Skill tree/research/traits and their stacking caused stupidly OP stuff to occur. However, mechanics shouldn't exist if they're meaningless/forgettable. Solution is to get creative with the buffs. An example would be double-edged modifiers, +8MA/-8MD for a unit. -10% ws/ +20% ap. Stuff like that.
  • MooncakeMooncake Registered Users Posts: 658
    Nitros14 said:

    Mooncake said:


    I can understand wanting to tone down the buff stacking available to players.

    This is exactly why it had to be done.

    In the long term restraint in campaign buffs makes the campaigns more interesting and fun.

    The amount of buff stacking that happened in WH2 made the campaigns effectively trivial by mid game.

    " 3% boost to a stat is completely meaningless."

    Consider that from various sources you'll probably get 5 to 10 such 3% boosts to stats by mid-campaign. If it was a 10% boost your units are now 50 to 100% better which is utterly broken.


    To be honest I'm amazed that CA did the right thing here. I knew there'd be pushback.
    What you are doing is just patting them on the back for halfassing a major part of the game. What they should have done is condensed the tech trees to about 10-20 choices for each faction if they really wanted to go down this route.

    If you sit down and look at Cathay's tech tree and honestly think that they did a good job, you don't know how percentages work. Getting one whole point of movement speed on infantry and port techs that don't even work is not a brave and intelligent design choice by CA.
  • MooncakeMooncake Registered Users Posts: 658
    I feel like a lot of people here think that this makes the game more "hardcore" and challenging, but being challenging for a bad reason is not a good thing. Why are AI cheats so unacceptable but poorly designed tech trees a good way to increase campaign difficulty?
  • busbee247#5862busbee247#5862 Registered Users Posts: 1,323
    by contrast the ogre tech tree is great! its hard to pass up +3 capacity for firebellies to get more camps sooner but thats exactly what it should do, be powerful but force you to choose the powerful techs you want most and leave others behind
  • Kn_Gars#2718Kn_Gars#2718 Registered Users Posts: 3,275
    Mooncake said:



    What you are doing is just patting them on the back for halfassing a major part of the game. What they should have done is condensed the tech trees to about 10-20 choices for each faction if they really wanted to go down this route.

    If they did that then people would have been complaining about the lack of research or that research was taking too long. What they did was pretty much follow the pattern set by the Dwarfs with a lot of tech but relativly minor buffs that add up.

    And while some techs clearly need improving and adjusting you can still get some pretty potent buffstacking going. My Kislevites are proving incredibly tough in battle thanks to the small buffs to melee defence and leadership that adds up. They just will not quit even when monsters straight from hell are tearing them to shreds.
    The user formerly known as KN_Gars, thanks for the involunatry rename CA.
  • SusaVile#9835SusaVile#9835 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,430
    Having just completed a spreadsheet with all buffs for all units in regards to XP/Research/lord buffs (former redline), I agree with you.

    It is indeed fine if they wanted to reduce the amount of change that units had. There are literally units that had double specific stats and would overcome many issues; one could argue those changes made the game more interesting by ensuring you got to play with a huge variety of units.

    My biggest complaint is how some factions get a lot while others get none. For example, Tzeentch has the LEAST changes to its units (funny how change is Tzeentch's thing, lol) while Kislev and Cathay have immense buffs similar to how Warhammer 2 tech and lord buffs work.

    Sometimes, these techs or lord buffs are ridiculously underpowered, like giving 4 melee defense to Sky Junk... (kinda worthless, really), or outright unnecessary (such as buffing Terracota or Spawn with leadership... they are unbreakable already, no gain from it...)

    I would definitely change a LOT of stuff, and mostly just ensure that specific units would fit more in their role. Changes that I like are speed for cavalry or units that rely on speed, or melee defense for holding infantry, or better armor for armored units... just making the unit do better at what it does; alternate that with giving the opposite, or reducing a weakness, would create some versatility in gameplay.

    At this moment, it is like pure randomness sometimes. It does not seem like a lot of thought was put into it, unfortunately.

    One important note: since multiplay versus campaigns are a thing now, I can guarantee you that I would rather have Cathay or Kislev or Ogres than Nurgle or Tzeentch in a very prolonged campaign; I am going to have a LOT of better units in the late-game just with the immense buffs that those factions have to their units compared to the chaos ones.

    This can be adjusted with balance, for sure, but I would honestly overhaul research and lord buffs to the army entirely, specially for immortal empires.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,896
    The Devs really need to save players from themselves in this case.

    Brokenly strong stacking buffs may seem like fun, but once the game has no challenge you lose interest fast.
  • HL230P45#1277HL230P45#1277 Registered Users Posts: 377
    What is worse modders, like myself, cannot see clearly how to rein in those immense buffs CA is in the habbit of putting in. Does campaign factions balance depend on them or are they capricious. You cannot always tell. This is especially true of technologies. For example, could I remove those +15% reload speed on dwarven units without pain or would they collapse because of it?
  • stephenparker7#6742stephenparker7#6742 Registered Users Posts: 165
    Even those who believe techs should be weak should be bothered by techs that give factions with little chance to get a port city port bonuses, vanguard deployment to units that already have them, or other options that literally do nothing. I feel like they needed more time and techs suffered.
  • aMint1#4859aMint1#4859 Registered Users Posts: 1,243
    Nitros14 said:

    The Devs really need to save players from themselves in this case.

    Brokenly strong stacking buffs may seem like fun, but once the game has no challenge you lose interest fast.

    This is such a bland point. Either a technology should be meaningful or it should be removed. Believe it or not, having uninteresting technologies does not make the game more interesting either.

    Like, instead of having three flavourless, impactless systems, get rid of traits and skill-tree red-lines and just have an interesting and meaningful techtree. Or be more creative in these systems such that you get cool unlocks that don't stack stupidly across all three system.
  • busbee247#5862busbee247#5862 Registered Users Posts: 1,323
    aMint1 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    The Devs really need to save players from themselves in this case.

    Brokenly strong stacking buffs may seem like fun, but once the game has no challenge you lose interest fast.

    This is such a bland point. Either a technology should be meaningful or it should be removed. Believe it or not, having uninteresting technologies does not make the game more interesting either.

    Like, instead of having three flavourless, impactless systems, get rid of traits and skill-tree red-lines and just have an interesting and meaningful techtree. Or be more creative in these systems such that you get cool unlocks that don't stack stupidly across all three system.
    So make traits buff units, make tech trees buff campaign effects and make skill trees buff lords? Would make sense to me. Always feels weird to have my badass character speccing into making their units cheaper...
Sign In or Register to comment.