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

General Domination Balance Discussion

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,363
edited August 12 in Warhammer Battle Feedback
Continuing on from Spellbound comment here:https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/313464/how-could-dragons-be-balanced-properly

Theo91 said:

The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.

Was this discussion in reference to domination mode? that mode seems to favour factions which can either burst damage or grind damage. Both have their merits, and this seems to be largely driven on how you bring reinforcements in.

More 'balanced' styles like Cathay and Kislev seem to struggle. Factions like DE and HE i think will find domination tricky which i think is why dragons will seem bad. in Land battles dragons i'm guessing will be more effective because the goal wont be to either grind out or quickly blitz capture points
Nope, 1.2 fixed the melee grind. SL is the weakest faction in Dom right now and they have highest burst dmg, go figure.
Fixed implies no further tweaking is necessary which I don't think is true. It's certainly better on patch 1.2, but that's largely because missile units can now reliably deal damage, not because missile units are in general efficient at contesting points. As a supporting tool for infantry they're able to be effective but quite often bringing additional infantry is a superior option based on how capture weight rewards quantity of infantry units. Kislev embodies this pretty well actually since in spite of being a missile heavy army they still are very prone to melee grinds to win games, with missiles being used to help keep enemy infantry off of points. After winning a point missiles become a substantially more effective tool, but that's because they're very good at keeping units off of points when supporting your own infantry, not because shooting factions off of a point is currently efficient.

Note that Slaanesh can be the weakest faction while it is still true that infantry grinds are favored. Slaanesh has the least sticky infantry out of any faction in game 3. Cathay infantry is pretty resistant to damage and Celestial Dragon Guard are a respectable holding infantry at their price and Slaanesh is uniquely vulnerable to missile units which allows Cathay to go fairly wide against the faction while still getting value out of their missiles. Kislev also sees a big benefit from this, being quite proficient at getting missile value while still favoring melee grinds. Effectively, burst damage isn't an effective tactic when the capture weight of your burst damage units makes them unable to capture points without having erased all of the enemy units on a point.

Again, it's substantially better than 1.1 but as long as every infantry unit has the same capture value, and that capture value is at least double any non-infantry unit in the game, infantry will not just be optimal, but will be necessary to capture and hold points. Cheap infantry will be too efficient at holding against anything that isn't just better infantry because mid tier cav or war beasts counts as 1/4 the capture value of 2 low tier infantry units, despite having the same cost. It's a very addressable issue but if we don't acknowledge it's presence than it won't get addressed.
Some of this is the intended result of the game mode, not a feature to be fixed. When you have to stand on a point to capture it, that will always create a different dynamic between melee and ranged than existed previously where ranged units using all ammo in the end game was the optimal play.

Ranged units have received some compensation for this that helps them in other parts of the game (terrain more important and chokes mean they are often harder to compromise and have better positions to fire from, being able to keep artillery near reinforcement points allows it to be much easier to protect) but now they are not a late game win condition, they are a "kill units in the early/mid game unit or provide support when pushing forward off points". It also means that hybrid units now have a more interesting use cases where they can engage on points in melee much more readily depending on what is most important in the moment.

I think cavalry getting a capture weight bump to 4 might be warranted, but cav is still excellent in Dom due to how important movement between points is as well as the difference in time from reinforcing to getting into combat.

In terms of cheap infantry (<500) being too good at holding, I'd say most cheap infantry currently is quite bad at holding (gnoblars/peasant spears/marauders). They have decent cap weight but rout so quickly it doesn't matter. And part of the balance is that, yes, when fighting on a point an infantry unit will outcap a cavalry one. But cavalry are much quicker and can engage before the infantry get to the point to make it about trading/follow up. Unbreakable units are of course much better at holding and there are lots of those in the mid range for infantry currently (+Spawn) but I think these factions are in for a bit of a rude surprise against the more fleshed out factions in IE.

Much of the observed gameplay is a result of unbreakable rosters and limited rosters as opposed to anything requiring domination-wide fixes. A small bump to cavalry cap weight should be on the cards if how IE plays warrants it, but ranged units are doing well now in the context of the factions we have. </p>
I certainly don't want infantry to be ineffective at holding points and I do understand the fact that this isn't a bug (infantry being useful and important is a strength of the mode that land battles have struggled with), but I do think you're underselling the value of cheap infantry here. One major issue with infantry below 500 cost is that you can bring two of them for every cavalry unit, every expensive infantry units, and even for some mid cost missile units (though in this case the ratio is closer to 1.5). This creates an issue where damage dealers can only target one of the two units, and units that aren't taking damage don't rout particularly quickly. Additionally given the capture weight disparity you have to rout all infantry to meaningfully start capturing if you're contesting solely with non-infantry units, something which leaves factions like Cathay with slow infantry and extremely limited vanguard options in an awkward place. Frankly put, if I crush a cheap unbraced infantry unit with a devastating cavalry charge from an elite cavalry unit, that should swing capture weight in my favor on a point. Currently it doesn't which discourages offensive infantry use in a lot of scenarios.

That difficulty in removing capture weight is substantially less of a problem when the units doing the killing also bring significant capture weight, hence the strong performance of melee rush tactics and monstrous infantry. Additionally this strongly favors aggressive infantry factions and can leave defensive infantry in an awkward place.

As for cavalry being "excellent in domination" I think that's a very hard point to argue for. The only faction that prior to multiple buffs was regularly using cavalry was Slaanesh, and they're easily the faction struggling the most currently. I don't think cavalry is bad by any stretch of the imagination but primarily cavalry is used in a support role and trying to directly capture a point with it is quite weak. Whether cavalry should get a capture weight bump or infantry a capture weight nerf is arguable, but currently cavalry is a bit too ineffective when it comes to capturing or maintain hold of a point, hence the common use of cheap cavalry to stop up infantry rather than to contest points. Winning combat is less important than being a road block, which is a bit weird.

I don't think this is primarily the result of unbreakable rosters, only Kislev brings mass unbreakable infantry. The normal daemon units are often easier to remove than the mortal ones. Daemonic instability and Banishment aggressively punish losing daemons without adequate support, and while spawn are incredible sources of capture weight at their price they're inadequate to maintain captures independent of infantry support. Normally if a Daemon faction is holding a point it's because they are winning combat there, not because they don't rout. I'd argue only Nurgle really feels like an unbreakable faction and that's largely because of their powerful healing. The Daemon factions benefit from having lots of and specifically powerful melee infantry which makes it easy to use their capture weight effectively. This strength will be shared by factions like the Beastmen, Norsca, and WoC even though they lack Daemon units.

I've pointed this out early, but a combination of lowering infantry capture value a bit (I'd shoot for 4, no changes to anything else) plus the addition of a system which increases capture weight based on tier (x1.0, x1.5, x2.0) discourages the extreme focus on cheap infantry, makes blocking with cavalry a less powerful use of resources, and can increase the capture impact of missile damage by increasing the value of target priority and lowering the number of infantry that need to be removed to swing a capture. Infantry does need to be key for capturing points, but currently melee infantry gives a bit too much for their price, especially when looking at the cheap end. Such a system rewards price with capture weight, but still leaves infantry with a significant advantage, and still means going wide by price givens you a capture weight advantage (2 peasant spearmen outweigh jade halberd, even though they cost the same price, but by a less extreme amount than they do currently).
Post edited by CA_Will on

Comments

  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,438
    yeah it's a great point. Will be interesting to see if a tug of war style game can feature more variety of builds if units cost reflected balance power to a degree rather than just unit type.

    Not to say eltes aren't seen - they are. but more expensive cavalry and large units are sort of functionaly locked out since neither surviving with them nor their relative killing power/rate are all that strong.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,363
    edited June 11
    @Spellbound55 I don't think I am tbh, I agree with your take in terms of the previous 1.1 patch where the bodies were flooding onto the map too quickly to deal with but in the current patch cheap infantry are not particularly strong performers. If any group of infantry is overperforming I would say it is mid-tier infantry (501-1000) and in particular unbreakable infantry on that.

    in regards to Cathay, Cathay's issues goes beyond their inability to push onto points. The number 1 issue Cathay has in Domination is that they are a ranged faction that can't control the air cost-effectively which makes it very difficult to keep their ranged online. 4 of the factions they face can field unbreakable flyers for 550 while they have to bring Longmas at more than twice the price which means they have to pick between protecting their ranged from flyers or bringing more melee to protect their range from a push on the ground. That's why Cathay performs much better against Ogres and Kislev than they do Daemons without the threat of flyers they don't need to bring Longma's which tend to trade pretty badly in lots of non-aerial engagements.

    In terms of cavalry use, Cavalry has always been relatively mediocre vs Undead factions for the same reason as they aren't good vs Daemons/Kislev. Mobility and the ability to crush leadership is a core part of what makes Cavalry useful in the first place and none of that applies (or at least applies much less) to 5 factions in the game currently. But Kislev brings plenty of Cav into Cathay/Ogres, Ogres brings Cav into Cathay/Kislev, Cathay brings plenty of Cav into OK (not kislev due to unbreakable).

    I do agree that the game as it stands now has an overly heavy role played by infantry but that is mostly due to factions. Look at VC/VP/TK matchups in game 2 and you see the exact same thing, Cavalry is relatively sidelined because when breaking leadership isn't on the cards cavalry is a less attractive pick. Thsi is also why monsters don't get a look in for lots of matchups, terror is much less useful against Daemons + Kislev but is one of the big perks of bringing monsters. Whereas monster play vs Cathay and even Ogres can be very viable currently (depending on the monster specifics).

    Tbh I would say at this point you should jump into the mod that let's you use game 1/2 factions and play some matches and see what you think. The mod definitely won't be 1-to-1 in terms of how IE will be as there are plenty of things that didn't translate fully correctly but the gameplay is empirically radically different with expanded rosters in the game 1/2 factions.

    All that being said, I do also agree that bumping cavalry to 4 cap weight would be something worth considering. The tier system is an interesting idea but adds a level of complexity I am not sure is warranted based on what we've seen of gameplay thus far. But if post IE this issue persists, it would be worth considering.
  • Spellbound1875#4610Spellbound1875#4610 Registered Users Posts: 1,900
    @DaBoyzAreBackInTown For the point on mid-tier overperformance I think that appearance has more to do with the efficiency of the units in game, rather than anything particular about mid tier infantry. Kislev and Cathay tend to bring a lot of cheaper infantry if they can swing it, in spite of having reasonably good mid tier options when considering average unit strength. Jade Halberds are commonly viewed as just bad (I think that's a bit harsh but they are pricey for the match ups), with Jade Warriors with chevrons being a fairly common pick after the 5 peasant spearmen (I wonder if without unit caps we'd see more chaff given only Slaanesh can field them in numbers easily). Kislev having everything with a ranged weapon means your chaff and your mid tier infantry compete and 1.2 changes really helped armored kossars making the extra price a lot more worthwhile.

    The Daemon factions on the other hand have a combination of limited low tier options and very strong mid tier options who are (intentionally) overperforming for the cost to make up for roster limitations. Even then you still regularly see factions that can loading up on chaff units before adding mid tier options simply because in terms of capture weight they're an unbeatable value and based on how the system works cheap capture weight is powerful.

    I base my position on the fact that when chaff is available most factions max out on it, before moving on to mid tier or high tier options. Again I don't want to make chaff unplayable, but it is a bit weird that I can delay a capture point being taken simply by throwing bodies on it. Totally possible this is an overreaction but I expect factions like Skaven and Greenskins who have access to a lot of cheap chaff and solid mid tier options will be nightmares to contest in terms of capture value, while factions like High Elves and Dark Elves will struggle simply to field enough capture weight to wrestle points by price.

    When looking at Cathay I think the difficulty of protecting missiles is overblown as a concern. Furies often go value negative when against Cathay, the ability to defend your missiles has markedly increased with their responsiveness and many half-health missile units are still able to make their presence felt from a damage value standpoint. Additionally against Kislev who lack flyers missile units still aren't particularly powerful tools, being useful but often failing to turn the tied on capture points. Ogre's really get counter by Cathay from a lot of different angles so that match up being rough isn't particularly surprising. Specifically the fact that a lot of Cathay's infantry just deals significantly higher damage in this match up, and against the units which aren't large Cathay's infantry is already so ahead on stats they win without trouble makes it surprisingly difficult for Ogres to leverage their cheap infantry/monstrous infantry options. Again, I think missile units struggle far more to be useful in capturing points than your analysis suggests, though I will note that missile units on a captured point can be exceptional force multipliers when it comes to maintaining control of a point. Cathay can snowball leads very effectively, but they have to get a lead to do that and if they fail to they struggle.

    On the discussion of Cavalry, we see the issues discussed even against mortal factions. When cavalry is brought against Slaanesh it's because you can trade really well against most of Slaanesh's light armor off a charge, not because cavalry is good at contesting or winning points. Attempting to blitz a point with cavalry rarely works simply because the capture weight system limits them to a support role. Meanwhile Khorne, having an infantry unit at cavalry speed can actually blitz points quite effectively, using flesh hounds and furies to run interference for hounds on a capture point. That seems to indicate that capture weight is a major factor pushing cavalry into support roles. Which to be fair cavalry is really strong in. Slaanesh, Kislev, Ogres, Cathay, Tzeentch, Nurgle and Khorne can get good use out of their cavalry/war beasts in the right situation, and failing to bring at least some is basically always a mistake; but that's as a support tool for infantry who are necessary to capture points because of how much weight they bring.

    For your counterpoint with the undead match ups in game 2 there are a lot of elements to unpack (cavalry is still just undertuned as a whole in that game per CA) but the most important thing is, if Cavalry isn't impactful in these match ups we can change that if we think that's a bad thing. CA buffed Jade Lancers for what I saw as no reason last patch, which suggests they would like to see cavalry playing a more active role in battles. In the same way adjusting capture weight to be more favorable even when leadership isn't on the table is a useful option. Cavalry damage is pretty good on the current patch, the issue is even with the level of damage they deal (just like with missile units) it isn't sufficient to force infantry off of the points fast enough to swing captures, largely because regardless of price infantry all has at minimum double the capture weight of non infantry, with cheap infantry having the exact same weight as elite infantry. The same point applies for monsters to an extent, but the relatively limited impact of terror is also a factor (though I think it's application against Khorne is more present than it appears).

    On the point of the mod, yeah it's something I'm interested in but I'm currently in a situation where I have precious little play time as it is. I'm not confident I'd be able to get enough data with it to really warrant commentary on it at this time. I'd be super interested in seeing various builds people are have success with though. The greater mix of infantry quality for factions in prior games would shed some serious light on the infantry breakdowns we see for factions with greater options. Skaven in particular will be super interesting given their extremely wide selection of infantry, monsters, and some decent ranged options. Also my understanding is the mod is something of a grey area with CA so I'm not sure how... appropriate in depth discussions of it would be here.

    Though again, this is my perspective on the matter with limited data. Looking at my prediction track record I'd say my suggestions tend to lean a bit more extreme than necessary so it may be better to start with a lighter touch. It does appear that regardless of the intensity of the remedy the general consensus is that something should be done to reduce the current reliance on infantry in domination.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,438
    The other dynamic you’re describing spellbound is the degree to which battle revolves around retaking caps mechanically rather than tactical play incentivized by the existence of caps.

    I don’t think cav and ranged units and the type of combined arms fighting this game and the units in it are designed for lend themselves to a battle in which sitting on a cap point plays such a paramount role.
    Fighting to gain an edge in forces to force an enemy retreat yes; fighting to physically get more cap weight no.

    I think domination would be a better game mode if the victory condition was higher, potentially coupled with caps no longer needing to be controlled by either side to grant you points for having a unit on them.

    The higher the victory points the more the game is ultimately about killing stuff. The less convoluted the mini game of cap control is the less the game is about piling more of the optimal unit into those tiny spaces.

    Basically just stay engaged in any way near a cap and you get credit towards an eventual win condition. Fail to engage due to loss of army or delaying tactics and you lose. But the game doesn’t revolve around cap control mechanics and suddenly every unit and more army types have a chance to win it.

    Does ca want to make domination less of a football game and more of a battle? I doubt it. But that’s the actual fix and what the game mode should’ve been from the start. Caps as a reason to fight on an interesting field and not some idiotic grind game.




  • Spellbound1875#4610Spellbound1875#4610 Registered Users Posts: 1,900
    @eumaies

    I don’t think cav and ranged units and the type of combined arms fighting this game and the units in it are designed for lend themselves to a battle in which sitting on a cap point plays such a paramount role.
    Fighting to gain an edge in forces to force an enemy retreat yes; fighting to physically get more cap weight no.


    This insight is key to understanding the problem I think, which again reveals one of the big difficulties of designing game modes. What are the incentives created by the win condition of a game, and are they what we want? You've very succinctly hit the nail on the head here, where a game mode that revolves around retaking caps is going to negatively impact the use cases of cavalry and ranged units, at least with our current system.

    I have mixed feelings on extending game length, because while I do agree that it would favor value trading factions it's an open question on how much we'd like to do that. In Enticity's qualifier there was a Cathay vs Khorne game where the Cathay player brought three Crane Gunners and a bunch of defensive units. The Cathay player destroyed the Khorne players on value, but failed to bring a sufficient amount of capture weight to follow this up and lost to the Khorne player very accurately assessing the situation, rushing for a triple cap, and then effectively ceding points when no longer needed to win the battle. If the game was longer the Cathay player may have been rewarded for what was a very uninteractive strategy and would have forced the Khorne player into an extremely defensive playstyle, rather than the aggressive and correct line of play used to win the battle. It is important for value trading and killing to be relevant but we don't want to engender passivity, to quote another game series I like.

    I do find the idea of providing victory points based on proximity rather than capture an interesting idea. It is very different so might have some unintended consequences, but if no other options are effective for addressing the capture issue I'd be open to exploring this kind of approach. I'm concerned it may fail to address the issue overall since infantry is still durable for the price and therefore beneficial in this proximity based framework. Probably less so than the current system, but just lowering infantry's capture value also does that.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,438
    Yeah the game mode makes it really hard to find a comfortable place for ranged units. They get a lot of defensive bonus from being near their spawn points but then are extra hard to defend in a multi cap context and where the enemy can spawn fast units at any point if you advance to the middle. For sure they haven’t found a way to make non hybrid non artillery ranged units have an interesting role.
  • Omega_WarriorOmega_Warrior Registered Users Posts: 1,401
    edited June 12
    A lot of it has to do with maps. Defensive missile races live and die by their artillery. Having half the current maps feature a large number of shotblockers basically denies them from using tactics essential To their design.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,363
    Most factions use their ranged units a fair bit though including their non-hybrid ranged units, right? My list of non-hybrid ranged units in game 3 currently would be:

    - OK: Leadbelchers
    - Cathay: Peasant Bows, Iron Hail Gunners, Both variants of Jade Crossbows, Crane Gunners
    - Kislev: The game calls all the missile units in Kislev "Hybrid Units" but I'd say Kossars/Kossar Spears/Streltsi are 80% ranged potential, 20% melee so will include them here.
    - Tzeenetch: Flamers, Exalted Flamer

    Of these, Leadbelchers see plenty of play, Streltsi see plenty of play, Flamers/Exalted see a decent amount of play (generally as a reinforcement).

    The big outlier is Cathay who I think everyone agrees are struggling a bit in Domination for a number of reasons. So it seems premature to say non-hybrid ranged or ranged in general can't find a role when:

    1. Most non-hybrid ranged units see play with the exception of 1 faction.
    2. The faction that has most of the non-hybrid ranged units currently has issues that (at least to my eyes) seems very similar to pre-dlc struggles that other factions have had in the past before the got their DLC (i.e. Skaven). The difference being Skaven starting roster got most of their melee but none of their range, Cathay got "all" of their ranged but none of their melee.

  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,438
    edited June 12
    All kislev ranged units are hybrids.

    Leadbelchers are a highly mobile ranged unit with long range.

    The only faction in the game with a “typical” non hybrid ranged unit is Cathay’s cheap and mid cost ranged. And Flamers.

    And that model of ranged units is very weak for the simple reason that defending ranged units is very expensive in a game all about capping. Nor can you even take a lot of ranged units when that leaves you unable to cap while waiting for your dead melee units to respawn.

    So the game as designed right now restricts ranged heavy builds heavily. You can use ranged units but can’t bring a lot of them. Build variety is weak in a game mode that tells you how to play.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,363
    edited June 12


    Fair enough perspective but I would note in this tourney (which is the most recent land battle tourney I could find) non hybrid ranged units got virtually no play at all by that criteria. Cathay's got none and there were a handful of flamers that made it in.

    So does "build variety is weak in a game mode that tell you how to play" apply to land battles as well? :wink:
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,438



    Fair enough perspective but I would note in this tourney (which is the most recent land battle tourney I could find) non hybrid ranged units got virtually no play at all by that criteria. Cathay's got none and there were a handful of flamers that made it in.

    So does "build variety is weak in a game mode that tell you how to play" apply to land battles as well? :wink:

    Have you never played a land battle before?

    They use all kinds of units and all kind of builds. Since Cathay is the only subject for now yes my Cathay land battle builds use plenty of ranged units, though they can also use more melee units instead.

    Domination literally requires a majority infantry composition in every build.

    It’s not even close.
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,677
    edited June 12
    1. since this is about general dom balance and i dont want to make a new topic, I think the capture power of units really needs fixing. Its all over the place right now, e.g. snow cats, terracotta sentinels have infantry capture power despite being monsters, ogre cavalry and plague toads have infantry weight despite being cav, and slaanesh soul grinder has infantry weight while the other soul grinders have monster capture weight. its a royal mess.

    2. Also I think the capture weights of unit types that arent infantry should be increased by 1 OR infantry weight should be decreased by 1. Which option depends on if you want the game to go faster or slower.

    inf 6-->5

    OR

    keep inf at 6
    cav 3-->4
    monster/character 2-->3
    artillery 1-->2
    flying 0--> 1 (Flying units should be able to capture at least a little bit, right now so much of their value is wasted in domination)


    3. In addition, there should be a capture power modifier based on a units value so that elite units would out-capture a cheaper unit of the same unit class.


  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,363
    eumaies said:



    Fair enough perspective but I would note in this tourney (which is the most recent land battle tourney I could find) non hybrid ranged units got virtually no play at all by that criteria. Cathay's got none and there were a handful of flamers that made it in.

    So does "build variety is weak in a game mode that tell you how to play" apply to land battles as well? :wink:

    Have you never played a land battle before?

    They use all kinds of units and all kind of builds. Since Cathay is the only subject for now yes my Cathay land battle builds use plenty of ranged units, though they can also use more melee units instead.

    Domination literally requires a majority infantry composition in every build.

    It’s not even close.
    There are 2 competing hypotheses for the play we are seeing in Domination:

    1. Domination only allows infantry compositions/makes various other unit types secondary to infantry
    2. A lot of the behaviour we are seeing in domination is primarily a result of factions in the game and drawing conclusions about flaws in Domination based on this is dubious at best

    In land battles we are seeing even less non-hybrid range than in Dom, which seems like a good piece of evidence towards hypothesis 2 being the much more plausible one.

    P.S. Also check out the final of that tourney. The way those builds matchup is exactly why capture points on land battles won't be able to replicate current gameplay that uses tourney rules. In a 3 cap scenario the Khorne player would have every incentive to run with his whole army until caps activated, and then use better capture weight to win the battle.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,363
    Loupi_ said:

    1. since this is about general dom balance and i dont want to make a new topic, I think the capture power of units really needs fixing. Its all over the place right now, e.g. snow cats, terracotta sentinels have infantry capture power despite being monsters, ogre cavalry and plague toads have infantry weight despite being cav, and slaanesh soul grinder has infantry weight while the other soul grinders have monster capture weight. its a royal mess.

    2. Also I think the capture weights of unit types that arent infantry should be increased by 1 OR infantry weight should be decreased by 1. Which option depends on if you want the game to go faster or slower.

    inf 6-->5

    OR

    keep inf at 6
    cav 3-->4
    monster/character 2-->3
    artillery 1-->2
    flying 0--> 1 (Flying units should be able to capture at least a little bit, right now so much of their value is wasted in domination)


    3. In addition, there should be a capture power modifier based on a units value so that elite units would out-capture a cheaper unit of the same unit class.

    1. I agree, capture weight should not be a opaque guessing game for each unit. If different units are going to be given different capture weight, then there needs to be an indicator somewhere on the unit showing each units cap weight similar to mass.

    2. Wait until IE and see how it all shakes out.
    3. Wait until IE and see how it all shakes out.
  • Spellbound1875#4610Spellbound1875#4610 Registered Users Posts: 1,900
    I do think eumaies is accurately describing the plight of ranged units here, with the caveat that if you do get them on a point and dig in they become substantially more powerful, which I think is one of the reasons Kislev performs as well as they do despite having weaker ranged options. As Kislev if you win a point you also naturally dig in with your missile units which can help snowball leads against melee factions. Notably, no one is claiming ranged units are useless, or that you shouldn't bring any, merely that you cannot bring a lot of them and reliably hold points.

    I like your hypothesis set up, but I disagree with your conclusion. It's a fact that you don't put your ranged units on a point you don't control unless you're desperate since unless they're a hybrid they'll lose in melee. It's also a fact that ranged heavy comps without hybrids struggle to control points. I see no reason to suggest either of these premises would change in immortal empires, which suggests that hypothesis 1 is therefore more likely with the current system.

    You need at least twice as many infantry units in my estimation, with additional non infantry units to protect your ranged if you want to reasonably hold points (for Cathay, the only faction that has to choose between ranged and melee infantry). It's a very limited amount of ranged units you can bring because you win points through melee. I'd still argue on this patch ranged damage is leaps and bounds better. Anecdotally on ladder the Khorne match up is no longer an absolute nightmare, since now if the Khorne player makes and error Iron Hails and Crane Gunners are very able to punish mistakes and remove capture weight from Khorne. Previously I had to massively outplay a Khorne player to win, with a single mistake on my part costing me the game. Now I can run three ranged units in my starting army and regularly punish Khorne infantry rushes while still holding points. The -50 cost on Celestial Dragon Guard certainly doesn't account for that shift, but ranged units are a support tool for melee infantry rather than a win condition in and of themselves. When I lose as Cathay it's because I brought too many range units, by which I mean more than 1/4 of the total units I've brought to the field. That's a limited amount of ranged units for a faction that's literally half ranged units (skipping variants, RoR, and Lords/Heroes).

    As a brief aside I'd argue the qualifier matches show this pretty well. The Cathay builds people have been bringing are generally pretty sketchy, but when they actually protect their ranged units we see very solid damage numbers, though most players fail to bring enough melee infantry to capitalize on that advantage. Ranged damage isn't particularly effective at removing the units which best capture points and this naturally leads players to bringing less ranged units if they want to win. Adjusting capture weight is a good way to help address this, especially if the new model includes a consideration for value since ranged units are de facto better tools for targeting expensive units. Loupi's suggestions are quite reasonable and I see little reason to wait until a patch or two after IE drops to make changes that lack a meaningful downside.

    What's the negative consequence of lowering infantry capture weight relative to other units classes, but still keeping in higher than every other class? What's the negative consequence of having price impact capture weight in some way? Infantry becomes less necessary to capture points but is still best at it? Doesn't seem like a significant concern. Elite units become more common considerations in domination? They already see significant play and chaff is already taken to the cap so this largely hits mid tier units which are overrepresented currently. These are pretty low risk suggestions, and CA has already set a precedent for reverting changes that went too far so I think it's worth being aggressive now.

    In 1.1 CA aggressively changed resource gain and the starting resources for armies, mostly for the positive though some changes were walked back in 1.2. A similar thing can happen here where elements of such a change that are annoying can be reverted in the month to month and a half CA has been averaging between patches. If we get changes regularly we should be more open to experimenting if we're confident something won't break the game.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,363
    My primary issue with the argument as a whole is that we lack a lot of data points (the game 1/2 factions) that we already know CA have tested Domination on internally.

    Could CA have gotten it wrong? Of course. However when CA have made decisions based on significantly more data than we have available it seems imprudent to recommend alterations to those decisions when we know we lack a huge amount of said data.

    Post-IE if the game mode is still in an unsatisfactory place (in terms of overall community feedback and CA's other metrics) then it is more reasonable to look into the types of changes being proposed. But from where we are now there are compelling alternate explanations to explain much of the gameplay we are seeing so a bit more humility about the limits of our own knowledge is in order here until we see how the old factions interact in Dom.

    In terms of what are the potential negative consequences, I don't know and won't claim to. But I will note that there are no factions in the game that lack infantry while there are three factions in the game (Dwarfs/Skaven/Vampire Coast) that lack cavalry. There are also 2 factions in the game without ranged at all (Vampire Counts/Slaneesh) and 3 others that have very limited skirmish range options only (Khorne/Norsca/Chaos) and then another 2 with ranged units in each category but very limited options (Bretonnia/Beastmen). By contrast the most limited infantry faction in the game is probably tomb Kings who at least still have 4 non-ror options (arguably Kislev/Ogres/Tzeenetch are more limited but I'm sure you see my point and they will get DLCs in future for sure).

    The potential for knowledge gaps here seems significant and relevant, so patience makes the most sense.

  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,438

    eumaies said:



    Fair enough perspective but I would note in this tourney (which is the most recent land battle tourney I could find) non hybrid ranged units got virtually no play at all by that criteria. Cathay's got none and there were a handful of flamers that made it in.

    So does "build variety is weak in a game mode that tell you how to play" apply to land battles as well? :wink:

    Have you never played a land battle before?

    They use all kinds of units and all kind of builds. Since Cathay is the only subject for now yes my Cathay land battle builds use plenty of ranged units, though they can also use more melee units instead.

    Domination literally requires a majority infantry composition in every build.

    It’s not even close.
    There are 2 competing hypotheses for the play we are seeing in Domination:

    1. Domination only allows infantry compositions/makes various other unit types secondary to infantry
    2. A lot of the behaviour we are seeing in domination is primarily a result of factions in the game and drawing conclusions about flaws in Domination based on this is dubious at best

    In land battles we are seeing even less non-hybrid range than in Dom, which seems like a good piece of evidence towards hypothesis 2 being the much more plausible one.

    P.S. Also check out the final of that tourney. The way those builds matchup is exactly why capture points on land battles won't be able to replicate current gameplay that uses tourney rules. In a 3 cap scenario the Khorne player would have every incentive to run with his whole army until caps activated, and then use better capture weight to win the battle.
    I don’t need to watch that tourney. First off it was a new players tourney. Second I actually play competitive land battles. Cathay uses its ranged tools and ranged heavy builds at will. Smh.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,438
    edited June 12
    Anyway spellbound summed it up pretty clearly. In addition to ranged domination also doesn’t allow for smaller more elite builds - every build must have a large number of medium/low tier infantry to contest caps right now.

    He also summed up a helpful change that is virtually no risk.

    I’m not sure it will really address ranged units - given the game design they may always be small time players or OP. But it’s a sensible step.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,438
    I think I get what you’re suggesting glorious re land battles in that for both slaanesh and khorne matchups it is typical for Cathay to use very few ranged units.

    However vs nurgle ogres and kislev it’s entirely normal to take a wide ranged line.

    In domination the mid ranged units are seen but just the way the game is designed you always must take a lot of infantry right now and because those units must actively contest two or three points you can’t generally afford to guard more than a handful of mid ranged units who are vulnerable to melee attack.

    On a map like itza you have your best bet of formation tactics since all caps are easy to reach and two caps can be contested with a single formation. But you still have the dynamic where your melee units will get wiped and then need to be replaced and contesting the caps becomes incompatable with also guarding several ranged units far from your resupply.
Sign In or Register to comment.