|
My only complaint with the avatar system would be the veteran units and personal map unlock bonuses. Everything else about it was completely rad.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
Is there a release date yet for the Brettonia or just maybe February but probably March?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:Is there a release date yet for the Brettonia or just maybe February but probably March?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:Is there a release date yet for the Brettonia or just maybe February but probably March? Typically, they don't announce until 2-3 weeks before the launch date, but they have previously said September. Smart money is on the 28th.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:Yeah, a Warhammer Avatar system doesn't have to be a 1:1 copy. There's room for the design to be tinkered with and honed. If it's anything like total war arena, it would most likely be fairly tame. Letting archer units set up small barricades or swapping melee defence shields on cavalry for ones with better missile block.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Pendent posted:drat, I was really hoping for a rehash of Shogun's Avatar system. I'm a bit curious, but how many people came in and played Shogun 2's Avatar system well into the game's life when most people had capped level units and generals? I figure that a lot of those new players were getting crushed since they couldn't really be matched against many other new players, I'm wondering who wants another Avatar conquest mode, people who jumped into Shogun 2 day one or the general populace. Because you can win against players with a capped general with a new general, it's just unpleasant as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Yukitsu posted:I'm a bit curious, but how many people came in and played Shogun 2's Avatar system well into the game's life when most people had capped level units and generals? I figure that a lot of those new players were getting crushed since they couldn't really be matched against many other new players, I'm wondering who wants another Avatar conquest mode, people who jumped into Shogun 2 day one or the general populace. I played a bunch of Avatar Conquest in the early days of Shogun 2, and again in the early days of Fall of the Samurai, and also played some later when I wasn't new to it or starting from scratch but was at a definite disadvantage compared to the people I matched with. You're right, when there were no others of similar level to match with it was significantly less fun, and I didn't stick at it. But I don't see why that needs to be the case with a reworked version which tones down the advantages for playing a long time. Or even does away with them altogether. I don't know about anyone else but I'd enjoy a version of multiplayer which allowed unit naming, painting, and had maybe persistent stat tracking for units (showing lifetime kills/deaths etc) without any boosts for veterancy or the like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
I really suspect that CA thinks that focusing too much on multiplayer would compete with Total War Arena, which is their game for that sort of people. So I don't really expect too much attention being paid to expanding multiplayer Warhammer for quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I really suspect that CA thinks that focusing too much on multiplayer would compete with Total War Arena, which is their game for that sort of people. So I don't really expect too much attention being paid to expanding multiplayer Warhammer for quite a while. Isn't it also so that only like 5% of the players actually do multiplayer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
It can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy though, because they put no effort into the multiplayer because no-one plays it and no-one plays it because the multiplayer is hugely under-baked. The Shogun 2 Avatar Conquest was absolutely a huge step up, but it, like the first attempts of everything CA does, had quite a few rough edges. Most of those edges could be resolved with limited effort and in a few key cases they already had solutions in place that worked but needed some adjustment. Things like your general costing more as you levelled up needed to be more aggressive so that a high level vs a low level was more akin to 50-60% of the new players size, rather than the 80% that it was balanced at for brand new vs max rank. The retainers were great but needed to not be a random drop, or at least be able to be bought with the clan token currency as well as having random drops. Maybe some weighting to getting the drop if you fight someone with the retainer so that meta-defining retainers quickly end up with everyone while a balance patch comes out. The veteran unit upgrades had some trap choices, the injured mechanic just didn't work as it just meant you needed to veteran two of every veteran unit you wanted to bring and the costs of the upgrades needed to better reflect the power increase or needed to be changed to percentage increases instead of flat ones. Veterans were pretty much fine, but the mechanics of actually getting them and levelling them up were hugely punitive to newer players and they should have just let anyone fill out their veteran pool to whatever level they wanted with whatever they wanted and instead gate the "home grown" veterans with cosmetic stuff so your loyal unit that you hand raised look completely distinct from the generated pool ones. Even the expanding roster as you play wasn't all that bad as far as mechanics go, but the fact they didn't give you enough tools when you started to be able to fight effectively meant that you could be placed into no-win situations as a new player which was a huge misstep.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Unless your game is literally MP only the proportion of players online is always 5-10% no matter how much effort you put in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Unless your game is literally MP only the proportion of players online is always 5-10% no matter how much effort you put in. Then you just sit around in a few meetings, put up the MP stats from your Shogun 2 days vs. dev expenditure and cost. You work out an ROI on that feature and try and transplant it onto todays metrics for Total Warhams. You likely find that you make more money by devoting your dev time to new expansions and DLC than you do by devoting your resources to an underplayed, under-promoted buggy piece of work. The idea is dropped and another DLC race is given its resources. And so the cycle of product management rumbles on and on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
I played two rounds of shogun 2 in multiplayer and it was terrible. I joined late.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Yukitsu posted:I'm a bit curious, but how many people came in and played Shogun 2's Avatar system well into the game's life when most people had capped level units and generals? I figure that a lot of those new players were getting crushed since they couldn't really be matched against many other new players, I'm wondering who wants another Avatar conquest mode, people who jumped into Shogun 2 day one or the general populace. I was definitely one of the people that only touched multiplayer pretty far into the games life, and yes that piece was pretty unpleasant to deal with. My expectation is that a new avatar mode would fix some of the really egregious stuff while still retaining some basic ability to customize your army.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Isn't it also so that only like 5% of the players actually do multiplayer? Shogun 2 got 30% of it's players to participate (defined as the achievement for XX multiplayer matches played) in MP. Rome 2 and Attila were more like 1% for the same thing. I honestly can't think of a more persuasive statistic to prove that putting some effort into the multiplayer draws more people into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Shogun 2 got 30% of it's players to participate (defined as the achievement for XX multiplayer matches played) in MP. Rome 2 and Attila were more like 1% for the same thing. How many matches were need, though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Trying out the VC grand campaign in earnest, what do you guys figure is the better lore for Vampire heroes in general right now, Shadows or Death? My last couple forays into the game were with Greenskin and Dwarves, so I'm kinda re-learning how to use the normal lores (and Lore of Vampires) right now. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Mordja posted:How many matches were need, though? The data is difficult to match up just because the achievement requirements are not consistent from game to game. The numbers required change, and sometimes you must win, others you must just play. Shogun 2: Win ONE Multiplayer Battle: 29.2% of Steam users completed Shogun 2: Play at least 10 Multiplayer Battles - 14.2% of Steam users completed Rome 2: Play at least 10 Multiplayer Battles - 7.6% of Steam users completed Attila: Play and win ONE Multiplayer Battle - 1% of Steam users completed. Warhammer: Play ONE Multiplayer Battle - 28.1% of Steam users completed. Warhammer: Play 25 Multiplayer Battles- 7.1% of Steam users completed. Shogun 2 managed to reach 15% engagement off a series with basically no reputation at all for MP. When they cut out the Avatar system (and didn't replace it with anything) participation was cut in half. By Attila it is just in the dumps and almost nobody even had interest in trying the MP. Now Warhammer got the series back up to a similar initial participation rate (about 30% of players being willing to try MP). It's hard to interpret the next part because of the discrepancy in requirement. Warhammer does get some credit for it's MP because even if it doesn't have a full blown system in place, they at least balance it and add new features and such. It's difficult to say if the IP had any effect on participation. It should also be noted that the data is a little misleading because Shogun 2, having been out longer and the subject of numerous deals and packs, has a lot more "dead" players. i.e. people who bought the game but never played really played it at all, multiplayer or otherwise. We can tell because there is a statistically relevant difference in the percentage of people (five to ten percent across the board) who have completed those basic "I turned on the game for more than 5 minutes" achievements like "win a few land battles in campaign". Taking that into account Shogun 2 had a larger percentage of it's owners who actually played the game engage with the multiplayer. So basically it's hard to draw super clear conclusions from the data. But in my interpretation the Avatar System got the series into the MP arena.... and then they promptly dumped it. Participation fell, and then fell further the longer the MP went ignored. Warhammer gave the MP a strong boost, although not quite to the level of Shogun 2. Why this is exactly is hard to say. It doesn't have anything like the Avatar system, but it DOES have more effort than into the MP than Rome2/Attila by a mile. To me this makes it clear that effort=participation, and not just "lol only a small minority will ever play MP no matter what the devs do". Meme Poker Party fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Yukitsu posted:I'm a bit curious, but how many people came in and played Shogun 2's Avatar system well into the game's life when most people had capped level units and generals? I figure that a lot of those new players were getting crushed since they couldn't really be matched against many other new players, I'm wondering who wants another Avatar conquest mode, people who jumped into Shogun 2 day one or the general populace. I started the avatar stuff probably 3-4 years after it came out and won my first 25 battles in a row. I don't remember going up against veteran units or generals. There must've been enough people just trying it out like I was and the matchmaking worked right because for the most part everyone had the same lovely ashigaru I did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Shogun 2 got 30% of it's players to participate (defined as the achievement for XX multiplayer matches played) in MP. Rome 2 and Attila were more like 1% for the same thing. I have played every Total War game and never had any inclination to ever do multiplayer. Especially considering that online players are in general in it only to abuse whatever units are broken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
I did shogun 2 multiplayer once. My opposition sat on a hill. I sat in a forest. After 5 minutes of staring at each other, I decided this was a waste of time and ran at him and died to his rifles. Fun!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Avatar conquest would be incredibly difficult for TWW. It worked really well in Shogun 2 because there was a small number of very distinct units that were shared across all factions, but this game has a whole ton of unique units and unique generals. I don't want to level up my vampire lord and my warboss and my general of the empire, I just want to play. What they absolutely should have brought over from Shogun 2 are the maps, which were really good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
A simple solution is to only allow the general to be leveled up so no vet bonuses for units and also make that hero's costs increase with its level. Or be a smartie and don't play TW games on multiplayer because it's a lot, lot less fun than any of the singleplayer content.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
jokes posted:A simple solution is to only allow the general to be leveled up so no vet bonuses for units and also make that hero's costs increase with its level. Maybe if there was any challenge at all in the campaign. In all total war games it's pretty much be over once you become medium sized with a few stacks and then the rest of the campaign is just a foregone conclusion and a slog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
I never liked multiplayer because there aren't really any stakes involved. I like playing the battles in the campaign since they have an impact on the overall situation on the strategic map level, but a battle in a vacuum doesn't really interest me. The only reason I'd ever play multiplayer is if doing so unlocked things for single player campaign mode, and that will never be a thing because the playerbase for this game would bitch and moan incessantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
MP tw is pretty fun, a nice different experience than playing against really predictable ai in battle but Warhammer is pretty poorly balanced (seemingly in perpetuity). In other tw lineups mattered but you could still win with tactical choices....In Warhammer if you pick the wrong lineup you're straight doomed unless the opponent is a real bonehead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Plavski posted:I did shogun 2 multiplayer once... Exact same experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:MP tw is pretty fun, a nice different experience than playing against really predictable ai in battle but Warhammer is pretty poorly balanced (seemingly in perpetuity). In other tw lineups mattered but you could still win with tactical choices....In Warhammer if you pick the wrong lineup you're straight doomed unless the opponent is a real bonehead. From the videos I've seen, that issue might be a bit mitigated in team games, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The only reason I'd ever play multiplayer is if doing so unlocked things for single player campaign mode, and that will never be a thing because the playerbase for this game would bitch and moan incessantly. It would also be astonishingly stupid to hide single player content behind multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 19:17
|
|
Magni posted:Trying out the VC grand campaign in earnest, what do you guys figure is the better lore for Vampire heroes in general right now, Shadows or Death? I prefer Death, but they're both good. The best part of Shadows is the passive speed bonus to all your units. Occam's mindrazor is powerful but expensive. Death's standouts are spirit leech and soulblight. The bigger spells like Bjuna and Purple Sun don't have the punch they feel like they should. Luckily, Vampires are the easiest heroes in the game to get a ton of , so you can get both! All VC lords have a blue skill tree that increases your Max hero allotment. A level 4 lord will get you an extra vampire, forever, even if you disband him as soon as you're done. It's a good deal! Lore of Vampires is probably the best lore in the game, though, so your vampire heroes can be overshadowed. --- Multi-player in this game is quite fun! I can't play it too often because of health issues that stop me from clicking quickly and accurately, but the little I've played has been a good time, and I really like watching Turin's strategy videos. You get the occasional bad sports, and there's a couple balance issues that still stick out, but the multi-player is actually in a pretty good place. Even weaker factions like Beastmen don't feel hopeless. As much as I enjoy zombie spam and the arrows of kurnous, they both need a nerf. Limiting zombie summons to four times a battle would probably do it. With wood elves, It's absurd that wood elf players can Out-artillery artillery by running diagonally into range, firing an arrow of kurnous, then retreating back out of range.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Eela6 posted:Multi-player in this game is quite fun! I can't play it too often because of health issues that stop me from clicking quickly and accurately, but the little I've played has been a good time, and I really like watching Turin's strategy videos. Everything about Turin's sportsmanship and general attitude makes sense when you find out he works as an athletics coordinator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Arrows of kurnis needs to either cost winds or have a limited number of uses. Why would you put a powerful, spammable function on a unit that can be essentially permanently invisible? CA??? u freakin dipshits?? Also get rid of helkcannons being unbreakable wtf is the point of that, it's pointless and stupid
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:I'm gonna run a new dwarf campaign, want to do some kind of gimmick. Playing straight has got boring. Ideas? "You got your Warmachine on my Warhammer" pretend to be a rich mining consortium must try and get trade agreements with everyone. The Industrial Age : You can only use mechanical or gunpowder units (no crossbows). Diamond dogs : must start or end wars if someone pays you for it .
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:Arrows of kurnis needs to either cost winds or have a limited number of uses. Why would you put a powerful, spammable function on a unit that can be essentially permanently invisible? CA??? u freakin dipshits?? CA decided to represent the hellcannon being an unpredictable insane demon that might end up firing on your own troops if it isn't being tight control by making the chaos dwarf crew unbreakable. It's super dumb. And all the 'free spells' like Arrow or the ones Orion has needs to have a limited number of uses or some other limitation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Kainser posted:CA decided to represent the hellcannon being an unpredictable insane demon that might end up firing on your own troops if it isn't being tight control by making the chaos dwarf crew unbreakable. It's super dumb. They removed misfire on all of the cannons in the game. Normally they explode one in thirty-six shots. The cannon was still supposed to be useful without the crew, but they didn't model that so instead they guaranteed it could always fire by letting the crew be unbreakable. I kind of prefer this over them making it a powerful melee monster that can crush things by itself. The free spells that don't take mana are balanced around them having longer than average cooldown times, especially compared to most spells. They could make them even longer, but I think if someone is using more than 4 arrows of Kurnuous on you, you just aren't doing anything to hunt down the waystalkers or you're camping and thinking that you shouldn't be punished for it. The Waystalker and Orion are both sort of balanced around their abilities as well since both are expensive and have no typical combat ability compared to a normal lord or captain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:I'm gonna run a new dwarf campaign, want to do some kind of gimmick. Playing straight has got boring. Ideas? Use the Karak Drak mod with Dresden's Liberate Factions and Vassal All Factions mods. Create a northern empire with your vassal/friendly Norscans settling the regions and then march down to reclaim Karaz-a-Karak. gently caress it, I think I am going to try out that playthrough myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Yukitsu posted:They removed misfire on all of the cannons in the game. Normally they explode one in thirty-six shots. The cannon was still supposed to be useful without the crew, but they didn't model that so instead they guaranteed it could always fire by letting the crew be unbreakable. I kind of prefer this over them making it a powerful melee monster that can crush things by itself. I think the thing about cannon misfires is they just don't translate well to the Total War style of battle vs. tabletop. Like the tabletop has more randomness in general, but beyond that how many times are you actually going to fire a single cannon in the tabletop game? If it fires once per turn that's still only like 6 or so shots in a whole game. Meanwhile in TW they will usually exhaust their ammo supply if they're positioned well and don't get taken out prematurely. So having a random chance to blow up every shot would most likely see you losing your artillery every battle. Which honestly would be fine in multiplayer (aside from it being kind of random bullshit if it blows up on your first shot), but in the campaign it would be a massive pain in the rear end. I'm curious how they're going to do Skaven since they are pretty heavily designed around the concept of having powerful but unreliable weapons so without misfires they'd both be really strong and kind of lose their flavour a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
They could make them reliably unreliable. Like, every time they use *gimmick thing* they are guaranteed to lose 1-2 rats to their own stuff exploding in their face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Unaware of how mechanics work in tabletop but they could make whatever a special ability that carriers a large penalty, ie melee/missile defence -70% in exchange for magic laser rifle firing for 90 seconds
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
It is understandably difficult for CA to properly transfer of a lot of the specific traits of units from the tabletop game into the video game sphere. This is because Warhammer Fantasy is full of trash rules written by idiots, while CA would prefer to make a game that is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:52
|
|