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

Domination

245

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,049

    Asamu said:

    Slade_X said:


    1 build, race, is already pretty much unbeatable, so its a endless stream of mirror matches or lose.
    2 factions are pretty much obsolete already.

    These are issues with faction/unit balance, not with the game mode. If you think land battles wouldn't be even worse, you haven't looked at the absolute nonsense that Tzeentch and Ogres can pull when there aren't any reinforcements... Tzeentch burning chariot + Kairos sniping is hilariously strong and can take out even Ku'gath in around 30 seconds. Pair that with the barrier mechanic letting Tzeentch cycle charge you to death without even taking damage, and... you can see where things are going. Land battles would be a nightmare with the current state of WH3 without a lot of rules to curb the shenanigans.

    Tzeentch and Ogres would still be the top factions. Tzeentch off the back of micro and air dominance, and Ogres off the back of Gorgers and Ironblasters being OP right now... which would be even more relevant in quick battles, where they can micro and abuse the Skragg regen more, and the ironblasters can skirmish for longer without any pressure to fight with the rest of your army.
    about this specific point, maybe I would add that these factions seemed "balanced" around domination. So even if they are even more OP in land battles, their poor state also comes from domination being seeminlgy less demanding in terms of balancing efforts. It's understandable to blame domination for having this sort of systemic effect on the game overall. Of course, unless we think they are not any worse than the worse faction releases in previous games, I can't say yet.
    I don’t think domination makes balance less important. It eliminates concerns about exploits like healing and barrier use over a very long game. But it also allows you to reuse the same unit advantages over and over in a game beyond your caps.
  • ZeblaskyZeblasky Registered Users Posts: 550
    Mkay, so, what do we have here? Unbalanced factions and units? One build beating everything elese? Bad maps? Badly balanced mechanics? What a shocker. Surely this never happened in land battles, especially on release day.

    Honesly, what did you expect? That a totally new mode with 4 new races and new maps will be fine and better than something we've been working on to improve for around 5 years (and stil constantly managed to run into a load of different problems)? Chill out, give it time.

    P.S. Maps do need a lot of creative work though. Some player creation imput would be amazing here.

  • BordigaBordiga Registered Users Posts: 346
    Amén hermano
    All opinions my own.

    Medieval II is still the best Total War.

    Damnatio memoriae to Arcade Mode
  • AIMA_DracklorAIMA_Dracklor Registered Users Posts: 4,718
    I quite like the domination mode, but the starting funds should be bigger and the reinforcement smaller.

    It should be a massive battle early with units coming up to adapt to the enemy.

    Plus there is something about the cap point that **** me off. Get caught up in the fight and then start dominating the field just to loose on points. Because the dude just sent units after units after units and I couldn't kill them fast enough


  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,767
    This is the problem, there is pretty much no reward or problem set really posed by the destruction or shattering of units.

    Endless reinforcements /respawning utterly removes the trade offs and any semblance of tactics, planning and tension.

    Reinforcements without respawning would be far more enjoyable, there is then a cost and a tension introduced whereas now there is none.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,135
    chasing units is a loose loose situation also, if you chase you loose control of the objective and if you dont chase they rally often behind your lines and contest you elsewhere.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    eumaies said:

    Asamu said:

    Slade_X said:


    1 build, race, is already pretty much unbeatable, so its a endless stream of mirror matches or lose.
    2 factions are pretty much obsolete already.

    These are issues with faction/unit balance, not with the game mode. If you think land battles wouldn't be even worse, you haven't looked at the absolute nonsense that Tzeentch and Ogres can pull when there aren't any reinforcements... Tzeentch burning chariot + Kairos sniping is hilariously strong and can take out even Ku'gath in around 30 seconds. Pair that with the barrier mechanic letting Tzeentch cycle charge you to death without even taking damage, and... you can see where things are going. Land battles would be a nightmare with the current state of WH3 without a lot of rules to curb the shenanigans.

    Tzeentch and Ogres would still be the top factions. Tzeentch off the back of micro and air dominance, and Ogres off the back of Gorgers and Ironblasters being OP right now... which would be even more relevant in quick battles, where they can micro and abuse the Skragg regen more, and the ironblasters can skirmish for longer without any pressure to fight with the rest of your army.
    about this specific point, maybe I would add that these factions seemed "balanced" around domination. So even if they are even more OP in land battles, their poor state also comes from domination being seeminlgy less demanding in terms of balancing efforts. It's understandable to blame domination for having this sort of systemic effect on the game overall. Of course, unless we think they are not any worse than the worse faction releases in previous games, I can't say yet.
    I don’t think domination makes balance less important. It eliminates concerns about exploits like healing and barrier use over a very long game. But it also allows you to reuse the same unit advantages over and over in a game beyond your caps.
    I think the game mode makes unit balance way less important. Imagine what these boards would look like if wh3 had launched with landbattles + objectives.

    Now its mostly discussions about points, timing, resurrection and starting funds etc.

    Nobody even mentioned how weak cav is into infantry in ultra, which charge mechanics is used in wh3, charge reflect, shields, the amount of cc, and op units are very few mentioned. Imagine the outrage if this was all judged on a game mode that is completely based on winning the battle instead of collecting trinkets.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,765

    IMHO it was players like the OP got us to this state. Now I do want to make myself clear that I am not all "Yay Domination da best! Land battle sucks!" I have been playing domination for some time and most issues the OP stated are real - the game certainly could be further optimized.

    Actually, in the community, Slade is known as a memer. He often takes silly armies because he finds them fun and because he likes additional challenge, like only infantry Bretonnia, or just squiggs Greenskins, or no ranged Wood Elves, or pure missile Greenskins....

    He's not doing that to give himself advantage, it is the opposite - he's doing that to give himself a challenge. The result is that he loses much more often than he should, considering his skill.

    Slade is one of the nicest people in the community and is universally liked. So when he complains about such things, it is most certainly NOT because he wants to "cheese", it's because of lack of variety in current domination battles.
    The extreme point of variety is a door to build roulette, in which battle outcomes are decided before the battle can even begin. If variety is so important in WH2, could you explain why tournament (made by people on your camp! gentle reminder) rules further restrict this "variety" on top of existing unit caps that apparently everyone likes it? This build is illegal under the tournament setting may I remind you.
    I'm not sure what your point is here. If you're arguing that without any rules and restrictions in army building, there would be "build roulette", then I agree with you. I'm not sure anyone would disagree with you. But, that is a moot point, since we have army limits both in tournaments and in QB.

    With limits in place, there was much less build roulette than people think. In tournaments, you'd see same group of people reach final stages vast majority of times, clearly showing that army building is also part of skill. Build "roulette" would imply that it was luck, and if that was the case, there would be much more variety.

    If you're talking specifically about pure artillery build example in the OP, then yes, it would be illegal under most tournament rules, but would be easy to make it legal without changing the general nature of it. You'd just need to drop a single arty piece and add a few cheapest infantry units.
    Why you wouldn't see it in tournaments, is because that build is total crap. Again, Slade is actually hurting his chances to win by using such a build compared to a more competitive one. He's using it because he'd have like 90-95% win rate vs casual opponents on QB if he played a serious build. He's just giving himself more of a challenge. When one loses to such an army, it is most definitely not because of "build roulette". It's because they were outplayed.

    It's because the OP has stated a lot of things right from the beginning, so we are definitely talking about different things.

    Lack of variety in current domination battles is what you are talking about, and it's true because in domination you can only bring a handful units in the beginning. Of coz you cannot replicate the 10 trebs army when you only got 5 units to start with. This is a fact and is related to the fundamentals of the new reinforcement mode. OP can't just bring in all trebs in reinforcement because he can no longer win that way, which I think everyone can agree. So yes no more 10 trebs army which in turns lead to lack of army variety.

    WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, is basically the OP's topic sentence and conclusion -
    1. It's boring
    2. Bring back the days when a man can bring foot repanse, 10 trebs , no mage and still win
    The OP is saying that his subjective feeling is that he feels boring because he can no longer bring silly army and still win, which somehow you guys interpret as:
    Lack of army variety = Boring, which is only true for the OP. Me for example, doesn't find that true at all!

    The truth:
    You can still bring 10 trebs army in domination. It's just that you can't win anymore, even against noobs. And that's why you find it boring.

    This imho is not about challenging yourself at all which you have mentioned a couple of times, 'coz tbh if you reli want the game to be challenging yea go ahead bring 10 trebs in land battle in a tournament and see if you win against a competitive player that would be a real challenge. Instead, the OP can only find his victims on ladder, i.e. noobs and win with those kinds of armies. WTH is that kind of a challenge and what kind of people find it interesting in doing that? It's like going back to kindergarten and play basketball with kids much younger and shorter than you. And then you "challenged" yourself by using one arm only. And when you win you talked to your college friends like "hey you know the other day slam dunk 10 times all the way playing with one hand only...pretty cool right" .... Like really? That's interesting and is considered a challenge to yourself?!
    I think you are fixating on the exact wording too much. I can't speak for OP, of course, but it would seem to me that he was using a rather crude example to illustrate his point, which is that there's much less variety in domination mode, which is my conclusion so far.

    In WH2, my armies were vastly different depending on opponent race and the map. My armies in WH3 have less variety, so far.

    And the biggest problem might happen when we get to a point that players learn all the ins and outs of factions and units. Remember how many threads were there for WH2 of "nerf unit X, because faction Y can't deal with it" ?
    Imagine how that might be exacerbated now, for example Dwarfs having to deal with HE noble on chariot being resummoned every time he's killed.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,049
    edited February 20

    eumaies said:

    Asamu said:

    Slade_X said:


    1 build, race, is already pretty much unbeatable, so its a endless stream of mirror matches or lose.
    2 factions are pretty much obsolete already.

    These are issues with faction/unit balance, not with the game mode. If you think land battles wouldn't be even worse, you haven't looked at the absolute nonsense that Tzeentch and Ogres can pull when there aren't any reinforcements... Tzeentch burning chariot + Kairos sniping is hilariously strong and can take out even Ku'gath in around 30 seconds. Pair that with the barrier mechanic letting Tzeentch cycle charge you to death without even taking damage, and... you can see where things are going. Land battles would be a nightmare with the current state of WH3 without a lot of rules to curb the shenanigans.

    Tzeentch and Ogres would still be the top factions. Tzeentch off the back of micro and air dominance, and Ogres off the back of Gorgers and Ironblasters being OP right now... which would be even more relevant in quick battles, where they can micro and abuse the Skragg regen more, and the ironblasters can skirmish for longer without any pressure to fight with the rest of your army.
    about this specific point, maybe I would add that these factions seemed "balanced" around domination. So even if they are even more OP in land battles, their poor state also comes from domination being seeminlgy less demanding in terms of balancing efforts. It's understandable to blame domination for having this sort of systemic effect on the game overall. Of course, unless we think they are not any worse than the worse faction releases in previous games, I can't say yet.
    I don’t think domination makes balance less important. It eliminates concerns about exploits like healing and barrier use over a very long game. But it also allows you to reuse the same unit advantages over and over in a game beyond your caps.
    I think the game mode makes unit balance way less important. Imagine what these boards would look like if wh3 had launched with landbattles + objectives.

    Now its mostly discussions about points, timing, resurrection and starting funds etc.

    Nobody even mentioned how weak cav is into infantry in ultra, which charge mechanics is used in wh3, charge reflect, shields, the amount of cc, and op units are very few mentioned. Imagine the outrage if this was all judged on a game mode that is completely based on winning the battle instead of collecting trinkets.
    Uhhhh or that is all completely overshadowed by their more epic balance fails which are getting plenty of attention and are so bad as to make me glad there is no competitive play right now.

    Also your examples are bs. You may not like ultra unit size or cav being very useful in a cap based game but Hypothetical balance fails for a different game mode don’t make sense if they intentionally designed around this one.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited February 20

    Dwarfs having to deal with HE noble on chariot being resummoned every time he's killed.

    Dwarves should have been given a counter to chariots long ago, and they will definitely need it in domination. slayers causing rampage like with elves do should do it.
    and the slow runes should be cannot move.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:

    Asamu said:

    Slade_X said:


    1 build, race, is already pretty much unbeatable, so its a endless stream of mirror matches or lose.
    2 factions are pretty much obsolete already.

    These are issues with faction/unit balance, not with the game mode. If you think land battles wouldn't be even worse, you haven't looked at the absolute nonsense that Tzeentch and Ogres can pull when there aren't any reinforcements... Tzeentch burning chariot + Kairos sniping is hilariously strong and can take out even Ku'gath in around 30 seconds. Pair that with the barrier mechanic letting Tzeentch cycle charge you to death without even taking damage, and... you can see where things are going. Land battles would be a nightmare with the current state of WH3 without a lot of rules to curb the shenanigans.

    Tzeentch and Ogres would still be the top factions. Tzeentch off the back of micro and air dominance, and Ogres off the back of Gorgers and Ironblasters being OP right now... which would be even more relevant in quick battles, where they can micro and abuse the Skragg regen more, and the ironblasters can skirmish for longer without any pressure to fight with the rest of your army.
    about this specific point, maybe I would add that these factions seemed "balanced" around domination. So even if they are even more OP in land battles, their poor state also comes from domination being seeminlgy less demanding in terms of balancing efforts. It's understandable to blame domination for having this sort of systemic effect on the game overall. Of course, unless we think they are not any worse than the worse faction releases in previous games, I can't say yet.
    I don’t think domination makes balance less important. It eliminates concerns about exploits like healing and barrier use over a very long game. But it also allows you to reuse the same unit advantages over and over in a game beyond your caps.
    I think the game mode makes unit balance way less important. Imagine what these boards would look like if wh3 had launched with landbattles + objectives.

    Now its mostly discussions about points, timing, resurrection and starting funds etc.

    Nobody even mentioned how weak cav is into infantry in ultra, which charge mechanics is used in wh3, charge reflect, shields, the amount of cc, and op units are very few mentioned. Imagine the outrage if this was all judged on a game mode that is completely based on winning the battle instead of collecting trinkets.
    Uhhhh or that is all completely overshadowed by their more epic balance fails which are getting plenty of attention and are so bad as to make me glad there is no competitive play right now.

    Also your examples are bs. You may not like ultra unit size or cav being very useful in a cap based game but Hypothetical balance fails for a different game mode don’t make sense if they intentionally designed around this one.
    If anything is bs here it's not that. It goes without saying that unit battle outcomes are less important when unit battle outcomes do no longer alone decide the outcome. Time efficiency is a much much bigger factor now, and that dilutes the impact of unit battle outcomes. In land battles you are way less time constrained and have no reinforcements, no replenishment and no respawns. In land battles you need to kill/rout all units, including units you have no counter for. In domination you don't, you just need to have your units hoard points more efficiently. Unbalanced units are definitely less obviously breaking games in a point collection game mode than in a battle game mode.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,049

    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:

    Asamu said:

    Slade_X said:


    1 build, race, is already pretty much unbeatable, so its a endless stream of mirror matches or lose.
    2 factions are pretty much obsolete already.

    These are issues with faction/unit balance, not with the game mode. If you think land battles wouldn't be even worse, you haven't looked at the absolute nonsense that Tzeentch and Ogres can pull when there aren't any reinforcements... Tzeentch burning chariot + Kairos sniping is hilariously strong and can take out even Ku'gath in around 30 seconds. Pair that with the barrier mechanic letting Tzeentch cycle charge you to death without even taking damage, and... you can see where things are going. Land battles would be a nightmare with the current state of WH3 without a lot of rules to curb the shenanigans.

    Tzeentch and Ogres would still be the top factions. Tzeentch off the back of micro and air dominance, and Ogres off the back of Gorgers and Ironblasters being OP right now... which would be even more relevant in quick battles, where they can micro and abuse the Skragg regen more, and the ironblasters can skirmish for longer without any pressure to fight with the rest of your army.
    about this specific point, maybe I would add that these factions seemed "balanced" around domination. So even if they are even more OP in land battles, their poor state also comes from domination being seeminlgy less demanding in terms of balancing efforts. It's understandable to blame domination for having this sort of systemic effect on the game overall. Of course, unless we think they are not any worse than the worse faction releases in previous games, I can't say yet.
    I don’t think domination makes balance less important. It eliminates concerns about exploits like healing and barrier use over a very long game. But it also allows you to reuse the same unit advantages over and over in a game beyond your caps.
    I think the game mode makes unit balance way less important. Imagine what these boards would look like if wh3 had launched with landbattles + objectives.

    Now its mostly discussions about points, timing, resurrection and starting funds etc.

    Nobody even mentioned how weak cav is into infantry in ultra, which charge mechanics is used in wh3, charge reflect, shields, the amount of cc, and op units are very few mentioned. Imagine the outrage if this was all judged on a game mode that is completely based on winning the battle instead of collecting trinkets.
    Uhhhh or that is all completely overshadowed by their more epic balance fails which are getting plenty of attention and are so bad as to make me glad there is no competitive play right now.

    Also your examples are bs. You may not like ultra unit size or cav being very useful in a cap based game but Hypothetical balance fails for a different game mode don’t make sense if they intentionally designed around this one.
    If anything is bs here it's not that. It goes without saying that unit battle outcomes are less important when unit battle outcomes do no longer alone decide the outcome. Time efficiency is a much much bigger factor now, and that dilutes the impact of unit battle outcomes. In land battles you are way less time constrained and have no reinforcements, no replenishment and no respawns. In land battles you need to kill/rout all units, including units you have no counter for. In domination you don't, you just need to have your units hoard points more efficiently. Unbalanced units are definitely less obviously breaking games in a point collection game mode than in a battle game mode.
    It's true that with killing mattering somewhat less the system is more forgiving in that way.

    However, respawning units that lack counters or are too good for the cost increases effective caps. And some units will excel at capturing or choked terrain dynamics introducing other balancing challenges.
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,765
    RawSugar said:

    Dwarfs having to deal with HE noble on chariot being resummoned every time he's killed.

    Dwarves should have been given a counter to chariots long ago, and they will definitely need it in domination. slayers causing rampage like with elves do should do it.
    and the slow runes should be cannot move.
    I was really just giving an example. Even if we assume that particular case will get fixed to everyone's satisfaction (a tall order), there will be other issues. It is inevitable, with the amount of possible matchups, and the current system will make them much more pronounced then they used to be.

    System could be tweaked to avoid it, or at least minimize it.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    sure but it is the worst one. i can think of a few others;
    factions w bad answers for flying/ranged flying
    factions with bad melee

    but i think dwarves vs chariots will be the worst one. the ranged flying is sorta kept in check by the capture points and reinforcements. the bad melee might be an issue as well though. luckily most of the affected factions could use a buff also in land battle
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,135
    RawSugar said:

    sure but it is the worst one. i can think of a few others;
    factions w bad answers for flying/ranged flying
    factions with bad melee

    but i think dwarves vs chariots will be the worst one. the ranged flying is sorta kept in check by the capture points and reinforcements. the bad melee might be an issue as well though. luckily most of the affected factions could use a buff also in land battle

    not if chariots continue to be bugged and do no dmg like slansh ones
  • Work_Safety_OfficerWork_Safety_Officer Registered Users Posts: 196
    Are really most of the issues raised by the OP specific to domination though? Unit balance, faction balance, bugs, all these will be the same in land battle. All I am trying to say is that don't throw away the baby with the bathwater.

    Domination intrinsically also uses the same unit cap system as in land battle. Complaining about lack of variety in domination is fundamentally no different than complaining about the lack of variety imposed by unit caps, or other unit type restrictions, whether it is by CA or in tournaments.

    Think about what really makes you bored - lack of new players for you to win while you purposefully handicapped yourself or really lack of variety? If you enter into the competitive scene of land battles you will find the same thing happening as well - no mage 10 trebs army can't win, will you complain that as well?
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,049

    Are really most of the issues raised by the OP specific to domination though? Unit balance, faction balance, bugs, all these will be the same in land battle. All I am trying to say is that don't throw away the baby with the bathwater.

    Domination intrinsically also uses the same unit cap system as in land battle. Complaining about lack of variety in domination is fundamentally no different than complaining about the lack of variety imposed by unit caps, or other unit type restrictions, whether it is by CA or in tournaments.

    Think about what really makes you bored - lack of new players for you to win while you purposefully handicapped yourself or really lack of variety? If you enter into the competitive scene of land battles you will find the same thing happening as well - no mage 10 trebs army can't win, will you complain that as well?

    there's a lot going on.

    An unfamiliar game mode that's different from what people are used to.

    Sincere dislike for split battles and loss of immersion and missing the tactics of a traditional sand box encounter.

    Limited rosters and bad balancing and bug

    Maps being both different from what people think is interesting or bad design or at least bad for certain preferred play styles.

    I think it's really easy to hate on domination in this context in a way that if you never had played land battles for years and years you wouldn't hate domination it would just be an interesting different kind of battle.
  • Work_Safety_OfficerWork_Safety_Officer Registered Users Posts: 196
    eumaies said:

    Are really most of the issues raised by the OP specific to domination though? Unit balance, faction balance, bugs, all these will be the same in land battle. All I am trying to say is that don't throw away the baby with the bathwater.

    Domination intrinsically also uses the same unit cap system as in land battle. Complaining about lack of variety in domination is fundamentally no different than complaining about the lack of variety imposed by unit caps, or other unit type restrictions, whether it is by CA or in tournaments.

    Think about what really makes you bored - lack of new players for you to win while you purposefully handicapped yourself or really lack of variety? If you enter into the competitive scene of land battles you will find the same thing happening as well - no mage 10 trebs army can't win, will you complain that as well?

    there's a lot going on.

    An unfamiliar game mode that's different from what people are used to.

    Sincere dislike for split battles and loss of immersion and missing the tactics of a traditional sand box encounter.

    Limited rosters and bad balancing and bug.

    Maps being both different from what people think is interesting or bad design or at least bad for certain preferred play styles.

    I think it's really easy to hate on domination in this context in a way that if you never had played land battles for years and years you wouldn't hate domination it would just be an interesting different kind of battle.
    I think I can only agree with you on Sincere dislike for split battles and loss of immersion and missing the tactics of a traditional sand box encounter.

    An unfamiliar game mode that's different from what people are used to.
    - Yeah that's why they are different mode, nothing to do with army variety

    Sincere dislike for split battles and loss of immersion and missing the tactics of a traditional sand box encounter.

    Limited rosters and bad balancing and bug
    - Clearly not domination-specific, land battle will have the same issue

    Maps being both different from what people think is interesting or bad design or at least bad for certain preferred play styles.
    - Think about two car models called "land battles" and "domination", this is like saying that you don't like one of the models because it has got so few colors for you to choose...That is not something intrinsically wrong with the model, and is certainly can be corrected by adding more colors. Also why is this related to army variety?

    I mean, domination, like it or not like it, it's you personal preference, but don't try to link it to a lack of army variety and blame domination for it. You can still pick 5 trebs as starters and bring additional 5 in reinforcement, the game doesn't really restrict you in doing that.
  • Work_Safety_OfficerWork_Safety_Officer Registered Users Posts: 196
    With the same logic I could start a post saying:
    Unit cap is boring I like bringing oxyotol, no mage, and 19 chameleon skinks...

    which without saying is absurd and ridiculous and I am glad unit caps kept that in check previously. Domination is similar but it also uses the reinforcement system to apply a soft cap to this kind of silly (or CHEESE) army.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,049
    edited February 21
    you've missed the point. I was trying to explain to you the many factors that go into why so many people are so salty about domination. I'm not arguing for or against the points i raised, if anything I'm saying people are conflating a lot of stuff into critiquing the new game mode.
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,765
    Well, it is probably true that it wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so many bugs and other issues.

    So far, I would say the reception of domination among the MP community is quite poor. I think it can be saved and can be an overall positive thing for MP, but CA needs to be willing to make some significant changes, and to keep tweaking the mode in the long run as well.
    I'm afraid CA won't be willing to do it.
  • Sindri_TWACSindri_TWAC Registered Users Posts: 152
    Ok, i feel like i need to give the topic my 2 cents also.

    The game overall feels a lot different from wh 2 regardless of you either playing Land Battles or Domination or Sieges or whatever. We might need more time for the final judgement.

    This aside. The problems i see now though:

    New factions are b a r e b o n e s.... The new rosters are more then just disappointing. Especially the demonic factions feel lacking hard. I find it realy hard to judge, if domination even realy works, when most factions are so streamlined. To me the actual faction rosters are one huge disappointment.... I mean just look at Nurgle? One would complain he is boring to play regardless of the game mode.

    Second big question mark is unit size set to ultra instead of large. Not to mention, people are used to large unit sizes and wh2 and its factions beeing balanced around said size, it is also baffling considering how poorly optimized wh 3 is. On the other hand there is no clear reason for having utra sized units. I feel like they should switch it back to lage asap. Cavalry for example feels too weak- and that is coming from me, who hates full cav builds etc.......

    Overall though, i'd take the new mode every day over land battles even in its current state, becouse it adresses the major problems we had prior, like build roulette and draw kiting. The elitism of some people is realy out of place. I've been there too, i've seen it and i used it. I was also top 100 when i used kiting WE build, slightly altering it depending on oponent's faction- that's, what i can asure you, what has become realy boring pretty fast. So no - please just work on improving domination mode, reserve land battles to friend games, niche tournaments and campaign.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited February 21
    my experience is build roulette is stronger than ever. if you have a clear advantage with first army its very hard to keep your units alive long enough to turn the tide
    agreed on the factions. i guess it helps that we got 8 factions but daemon faction especially are really too small. it smells like cashgrab with mandatory DLCs.
  • HolySaintKnightHolySaintKnight Registered Users Posts: 4,462

    Land Battles

    It's Boring

    5 years you had to do anything with it, with tons of complaints on the forums to assist you.
    I can't stand playing for more than a few weeks at a time. Every game is just skirmish cav shooting you and single entities cycle charging you.

    Day 2,000 and still land battles never caught on. Stale competition, builds, and "design." BORING.
    Infantry are pointless, just there to soak missiles and die.
    1 build, any race, no one could find a better build than skirmish cav and SEM's for 5 years. Just an endless stream of WE/DE ranged kite, or OP summons being spammed at you every game (to protect their ranged units).
    I can only assume that you saw this and rightfully changed this garbage game mode. (What kind of competitive "esports" scene needs to police themselves with their own rules to fight abuse? LOL.)

    Never bring back the days where I am forced to run at the enemy missiles just because I have less of them.

    Well said. Whoever wants can still play land battles.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,135

    Land Battles

    It's Boring

    5 years you had to do anything with it, with tons of complaints on the forums to assist you.
    I can't stand playing for more than a few weeks at a time. Every game is just skirmish cav shooting you and single entities cycle charging you.

    Day 2,000 and still land battles never caught on. Stale competition, builds, and "design." BORING.
    Infantry are pointless, just there to soak missiles and die.
    1 build, any race, no one could find a better build than skirmish cav and SEM's for 5 years. Just an endless stream of WE/DE ranged kite, or OP summons being spammed at you every game (to protect their ranged units).
    I can only assume that you saw this and rightfully changed this garbage game mode. (What kind of competitive "esports" scene needs to police themselves with their own rules to fight abuse? LOL.)

    Never bring back the days where I am forced to run at the enemy missiles just because I have less of them.

    Well said. Whoever wants can still play land battles.
    Wrong, lobbies are bugged, and if you keep domination just in custom lobbies and not ranked same argument can be used.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    i'd be perfectly fine with both being part of ladder. i dont know what you achieve by phasing out land battles other than frustrating MP players from game 2 and denying new players the format.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,767
    Both should be part of ladder.

    There isn't a good reason not to. Just as there isnt a justification in saying land battles couldn't benefit from some lessons of domination and vice-versa.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,579
    Nah, would be absolutely stupid to divide the players, not to mention totally pointless keeping toxic players for what?
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • TicladesignTicladesign Registered Users Posts: 123
    It would be nice to have Domination mode for AI battles, so we can practice the maps before playing MP and getting steamrolled by the pro's and anyone who has played this mode a while.

    Cannot figure out why Domination has not been added for the AI battles.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,049

    It would be nice to have Domination mode for AI battles, so we can practice the maps before playing MP and getting steamrolled by the pro's and anyone who has played this mode a while.

    Cannot figure out why Domination has not been added for the AI battles.

    because your average SP player sets up a game expecting the AI to at least try to win and they do not have an AI that knows how to try to win domination mode
This discussion has been closed.