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 Review

2»

Comments

  • friedchikinfriedchikin Registered Users Posts: 164

    Domination is a failure at the moment.
    This has been exacerbated by enforcing it as the primary game mode alienating many.

    There was no need for such heavy handedness.

    It may well improve and eventually be good but at the moment as the disagree count on the OP makes clear it is not liked.


    Add land battles back to QB

    Add a capture point to land battles if desired but don't let that stop the reintroduction of land battles to QB

    Keep refining Dom and Land battles.


    Everyone wins.

    nah if you want land battles you should get them as they were in wh1 and wh2, full of corner camping and draw kiting. If you can't corner camp and draw kite the LB community is going to be very unhappy that their playstyle doesn't work anymore.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,797
    @DaBoyzAreBackInTown

    Well I missed some fruitful discussion.

    To put my point above a bit more succinctly, basically I am saying that trickling supplies to the player will mean that supplies tend to be spent in the reinforcement menu as a trickle. But giving larger quantities of supplies in batches will allow supplies to be spent in batches or on more expensive purchases more regularly (even though the rate at which you bring reinforcements in overall may decline).


    I see the logic in your suggestion but my main contention is that this premise here, that trickling supplies naturally produces trickling units doesn't seem to be true. However part of this comes down to what you are defining as a "trickle". I wouldn't say a 2 to 3 group of summons counts as a trickle, but I also wouldn't say a single fast mover summon counts as a trickle. To my mind a trickle would imply a consistent rate of summoning done essentially as soon as units become available and I don't think that behavior is common even in 1.1. Players often end up with a large enough pool of supplies to summon multiple small units, single expensive units, or rush summoning small units in 1.1 and in 1.0 you'd still see summons coming in batches rather than being a slow consistent trickle. Effectively I see batching supplies as largely just a restriction on when batch summoning is available rather than a true incentive to batch summon, since a lot of players already do that.

    What are the biggest problems with domination atm in your opinion?


    So this is an interesting question since a lot of the problems I'd identify in domination are just an extension of the issue of excess resources which is the single biggest issue I'd identify in the current system. I'd argue that most of the issues in domination structurally can be explained by a lack of resource scarcity at this time (map selection and individual unit balance being two issues that while related are not primarily caused by this lack of scarcity). This certainly isn't an end all be all description of the game mode for the record, just things I've noticed in games I've watched and games I've played (I primarily play Cathay and Slaanesh, with splashes of Nurgle, Khorne, and Kislev for context).

    The first major consequence of this is unit loss isn't impactful enough. Currently it is quite possible to build armies that regularly run out of summons while still having supplies. Instead of the reinforcement pool being a source of flexibility that needs to be leveraged in response to a changing battlefield, it's just a large pool of units which encourages aiming for picking units based on overall efficiency as a win con rather than to counter a playstyle. Units like Sky Junks and Fire Rain Rockets (and to an extent all ranged units) aim to create value advantages for your army at a distance and trade capture value (even for infantry since getting missile units on a point is difficult without already having won an engagement) which is a strategy that only works if you can reasonably run an opponent out of resources. Anti-infantry units like Cav and Chariots are also in some cases a questionable use of resources since removing an infantry unit at 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of your cav only brings a short term advantage, one often outweighed by the difference in capture weight. In the current system these picks are often unable to swing games even if they earn massive value since you can't reasonably table opponents, something with undercuts the point of real time strategy battles.

    This also bleeds into other issues, like banishment actually being a boon in comparison to regular leadership (because the time in the refresh pool is the only meaningful limiting factor on summons), advantaging daemon factions/ogres who have fast melee infantry/monstrous infantry who have high capture weight and do damage with the same action that generates capture value (moving towards the points), and the fact that utility units in general are often a poor use of resources since turning an individual fight on a point isn't particularly useful if you're sacrificing capture weight for the privilege (Blood Thrones as a buff unit might be interesting but what would I ever pick one when more infantry will just show up). I do think a reduction in resummon time for recalled rather than killed or routed units would be a reasonable way to balance this and it would encourage active decision making about how best to balance resources as a player.

    Another major consequence is "chaff" spam being relatively viable (slight misnomer given that mid tier infantry are also pretty spamable in 1.1). As is it's possible to literally produce so much "chaff" that units like cavalry, chariots, and missiles just can't reliably get them off of points in a cost effective manner. Infantry concentrations can be so heavy that a devastating rear charge is just a waste of time in comparison to bringing more infantry. This rewards factions with lots of cheap infantry who can just throw them at point to flip capture value even if they have no chance of winning the combat. This makes elite infantry harder to justify since even if they win combat they bring relatively poor capture value over the course of the game. Notably the daemons are less penalized by this restriction given they tend to be heavier on melee infantry/monstrous infantry in the first place meaning more units that leverage their capture weight effectively (Tzeentch is something of an exception but Tzeentch's elite infantry are longer range). I differ from some other posters in that I don't see the increased importance of infantry as a bad thing and I'm not opposed to the game becoming more infantry centric, but if that's the case losing infantry needs to be a more significant penalty.

    A reduction in resources makes chaff spam less effective, both by making each dead unit a more significant cost on its own and by decreasing the ability to overpay for units to return them to the field faster (which benefits factions with cheap infantry more than others), since having too few supplies because substantially more likely. I'd personally like to see the option to overpay for units to be pulled entirely to increase the punishment from losing a unit as an additional change.

    The last issue which is primarilly caused by the abundance of resources is the resummoning of heroes to refresh limited use abilities. Summons and Patriarch Heals are obvious abuse cases seen in the game 3 factions, and while this wasn't totally unheard of in 1.0, the fact that you can regularly bank excess resources means resummoning heroes is much less of a cost. The fact that used abilities are refreshed is an inconsistency in comparison to WoM which remain used no matter how many times you summon a character (not to mention in some cases we see bound abilities removed and replaced with spells making the refresh particular advantageous). Given that the Daemon heroes comes with reusable abilities this system really undercuts their value since a summon is both more powerful and similarly reusable with a minor hoop, and that's before noting cost issues.

    After that, more maps and maps like Itza need more summon points for the main army. I don't find the lane maps as egregious as a lot of players here but I do think we need more open maps for variety. Nerf some over performing units like bear sleds, some price adjustments to units will still be necessary, but these are all levels we'd expect to tinker with as the game evolves, not core pieces of the system that are inherently a problem in every game.
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,809

    Domination is a failure at the moment.
    This has been exacerbated by enforcing it as the primary game mode alienating many.

    There was no need for such heavy handedness.

    It may well improve and eventually be good but at the moment as the disagree count on the OP makes clear it is not liked.


    Add land battles back to QB

    Add a capture point to land battles if desired but don't let that stop the reintroduction of land battles to QB

    Keep refining Dom and Land battles.


    Everyone wins.

    nah if you want land battles you should get them as they were in wh1 and wh2, full of corner camping and draw kiting. If you can't corner camp and draw kite the LB community is going to be very unhappy that their playstyle doesn't work anymore.
    I'll take that in a heartbeat. Corner camping and draw kiting didn't happen nearly as often as it is assumed. Maybe 2% or so of matches.
  • DaDokisinXDaDokisinX Registered Users Posts: 54
    Nice post @DaBoyzAreBackInTown. Well reasoned with an easy to implement change that would have a big change for the better. I would implement your suggestions if I was in charge.

    I do find it funny that you get disagreed bombed probably for no other reason than not saying "Domination is a failure, give back land battles." And then there is the dozen or so people that prowl these forums everyday and think they speak for everyone.. Honestly it's quite toxic.

    Case and point is right here. You make a very good argument with very good evidence. Yet at least half the commenters just shout you down, refuse to engage rationally, and derail the discussion simply cause you like domination. This behavior is more than enough to drive me (and many others) away IMHO. Just not productive to say the least.

    Downvote me away posse! These forums are so toxic so I don't really care. Nice that CA can see through the muck.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,243

    Nice post @DaBoyzAreBackInTown. Well reasoned with an easy to implement change that would have a big change for the better. I would implement your suggestions if I was in charge.

    I do find it funny that you get disagreed bombed probably for no other reason than not saying "Domination is a failure, give back land battles." And then there is the dozen or so people that prowl these forums everyday and think they speak for everyone.. Honestly it's quite toxic.

    Case and point is right here. You make a very good argument with very good evidence. Yet at least half the commenters just shout you down, refuse to engage rationally, and derail the discussion simply cause you like domination. This behavior is more than enough to drive me (and many others) away IMHO. Just not productive to say the least.

    Downvote me away posse! These forums are so toxic so I don't really care. Nice that CA can see through the muck.

    just shows how popular DOM is, people stopped caring about improving it at this stage and rather it just reverted though we know that wont happen, best thing for DOM rite now would be to add land battle que so all the haters can shut up and DOM can grow.
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,809

    Nice post @DaBoyzAreBackInTown. Well reasoned with an easy to implement change that would have a big change for the better. I would implement your suggestions if I was in charge.

    I do find it funny that you get disagreed bombed probably for no other reason than not saying "Domination is a failure, give back land battles." And then there is the dozen or so people that prowl these forums everyday and think they speak for everyone.. Honestly it's quite toxic.

    Case and point is right here. You make a very good argument with very good evidence. Yet at least half the commenters just shout you down, refuse to engage rationally, and derail the discussion simply cause you like domination. This behavior is more than enough to drive me (and many others) away IMHO. Just not productive to say the least.

    Downvote me away posse! These forums are so toxic so I don't really care. Nice that CA can see through the muck.

    As opposed to two or three people who praise domination? What are you even talking about?

    Sure, domination can be improved. It still won't make it good, because it is inherent design that people dislike, rather than specific issues.

    MP as a whole is a relatively small part of this game, and it is on the bottom of the list of priorities for CA. Thinking that CA keeping domination is evidence of their commitment is mistaking lethargy for strategy.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,343
    edited April 27
    @Spellbound55 I guess we will have to see. From my experience watching tournaments (where I can most easily watch the rate at which supplies are spent) it seems far more common for supplies to be trickled onto the field instead of batched. When I say trickle I mean predominantly the amount of supplies because as you say you can quite easily get enough supplies to bring on 4 gnoblars at once. But it is much more rare for units to be brought on that are 1500+ or combos that hit the high 2k or over amount which contains a lot of unit combinations from game 1/2.

    You could be correct though that it is mainly an issue of too much supplies overall although I don't really see how reducing the rate of supply accrual will help this problem as it seems more likely to me to exacerbate it and further contribute to mid/late game summons being low supply cost units brought out more frequently instead of batched purchases or purchase of more expensive units. I think I differ a bit from your view primarily because I think that the increased rate of supply is one of the few things allowing for elites or batched units to be brought as much as they are currently, and think that a reduction in rate of supply (while a good thing for the game) will disproportionately hurt batched units + expensive units.

    In saying that if devs wanted to play it safe (which I suspect they will) they could approach the next patch with Dom changes staggered so:

    - Patch 1.2 = Reduce supply per second to 16 (-4) and increase starting supply to 1000 (+500)
    - Patch 1.3 = If there still seem to be issues with mid-late game trickle and an underrepresentation of elites or combined arms, look into a method to batch supplies.

    As for the rest, I agree with your points around general balancing.

    Imo the most important thing for next patch bar none is to add in the game 1 & 2 factions. Will instantly inject a massive amount of replayability into the multiplayer that just isn't there at the moment (relatively speaking). With 7 factions in the game we currently have 21 unique matchups. With 22 factions in the game we will have 231 and that is before even taking into consideration the far more fleshed out nature of the rosters in game 1 & 2 making those matchups much more interesting in general.
    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
Sign In or Register to comment.