|
Kanos posted:Do you mean "free" as in "can be replaced", or "free" as in "an additional slot on top of the normal slots"? A 100% free slot, which would probably mean rolling ports into the capital building chain for small extra growth/gold/2% trade income per port city.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:A 100% free slot, which would probably mean rolling ports into the capital building chain for small extra growth/gold/2% trade income per port city. Elven colony city buildings are already this basically. Elf supremacy was right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
Carcer posted:It was more directed to his friends not wanting to use mods at all. You do you with the ports, though. I am that friend. This is for a head to head campaign. It's not a question of the difficulty in installing a mod. It's that I don't agree in one modder's opinion in what's balanced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Xan posted:I am that friend. This is for a head to head campaign. It's not a question of the difficulty in installing a mod. It's that I don't agree in one modder's opinion in what's balanced. competitively balanced: a tier 5 building that provides growth and just enough money to recoup its cost in 150 turns
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
Regardless of what you think of the campaign's difficulty, anyone capable of the most basic math can take one glance at what the nerfed ports provide versus how much they cost and understand that they're completely hosed, even without taking into account stuff like the opportunity cost of having a building slot stuck as a port. The mod to "fix" ports literally just reverts them to the values they've had for the entirety of TWW2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:competitively balanced: a tier 5 building that provides growth and just enough money to recoup its cost in 150 turns I'd rather wait for CA to address it than use some guy's attempt on the internet to do what he thinks is fair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
drat after 3 kingdoms and then succumbing to my divide et impera addiction again coming back to vanilla warham2 is rough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
Xan posted:I am that friend. This is for a head to head campaign. It's not a question of the difficulty in installing a mod. It's that I don't agree in one modder's opinion in what's balanced. Like, what's the massive balance upset about making ports not total dogshit? It'd just facilitate you guys getting to the fun units a bit quicker. But at the same time OP obviously thinks the ports should be unnerfed, why is your opinion about this more important than your friends?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
Xan posted:I'd rather wait for CA to address it than use some guy's attempt on the internet to do what he thinks is fair. CA did, they made it 150 turns
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Hey guys, I want CA to address the change that they already addressed instead of going back to a previous setting and I will wait *checks notes* up to six months for this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:The Reikland start is now pretty frustrating. The secessionists start with control of Helmgart, which is now a special fort town. If you don't take it immediately, they'll upgrade it, and it's a bastard to take with only basic troops and no artillery. Also the toofsmashas (or whatever those orcs in central Brettonia are called) like sending stacks across every now and then. I couldn't ignore it either, because this fort that has literally no economy is still good enough to sustain a standing army, so my one stack had to guard that new town. I think the pro-strat is to rush into the first quest battle and hope like hell you capture all the artillery there. You don't need to cross the walls in sieges, just use alot of archers/crossbow, and outshoot the defenders. The AI will never go outside the wall, and the garrison will not replenish if under siege.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
Third World Reagan posted:Hey guys, I want CA to address the change that they already addressed instead of going back to a previous setting and I will wait *checks notes* up to six months for this. That's why everyone who plays competitive multiplayer all use mods right? Because everyone can agree on exactly how things should be balanced. But yeah you could make a case that no one really plays competitive head to head games and so that it doesn't really apply here. I get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
the vanilla skill trees... the horror
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Hentai Jihadist posted:the vanilla skill trees... What did you replace them with?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
I'm going to upgrade the lovely ports because I don't like seeing the little "building available" hammer icon
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Xan posted:That's why everyone who plays competitive multiplayer all use mods right? Because everyone can agree on exactly how things should be balanced. But yeah you could make a case that no one really plays competitive head to head games and so that it doesn't really apply here. I get it. They don't use mods, but they do use an established set of rules on what units and how many they can pick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Xan posted:That's why everyone who plays competitive multiplayer all use mods right? Because everyone can agree on exactly how things should be balanced. But yeah you could make a case that no one really plays competitive head to head games and so that it doesn't really apply here. I get it. competitive multiplayer is in quick battle format for a reason yes. sorry for disrespecting the wildly popular competitive campaign scene. (battles that last 20 minutes at the extreme most adapt to the new meta extremely quickly, have wildly different expectations, and anyway "150 turns to be worth it" is like the mp equivalent of adding an ability with a 900-second cooldown- no one will ever pick it.) Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Sep 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
Xan posted:That's why everyone who plays competitive multiplayer all use mods right? Because everyone can agree on exactly how things should be balanced. But yeah you could make a case that no one really plays competitive head to head games and so that it doesn't really apply here. I get it. Shifting the ports back to how they have been for three years is not a radical change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:What did you replace them with? nothing yet, i usually use luckys which... im not sure about lucky's battle balance but the skill trees are excellent and NEED to be stolen for WH3 or improved on come back to vanilla after playing some other TWs I think vanilla warhammer 2 has weird battle balance too but i'm not sure how to articulate it. i think maybe just that the killing power and fragility of a top tier compared to a bottom tier unit is a lot closer than in other TWs, with a few outliers. Luckys does fix this by severely differentiating killy units from tarpit units but makes pretty much every enemy faction a pain in the rear end to fight. also i guess the engine just doesnt handle single units or big units very well and they're a big part of warhams
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Xan posted:I'd rather wait for CA to address it than use some guy's attempt on the internet to do what he thinks is fair. Lol Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
I think making t3 ports act like t2 hatmakers and t2 farms rolled into one would work. Make t1 ports just be t1 hats/farms too. Boring but effective. Hell, you could even make Markus' ports as lovely as they are, but decrease the cost a bit and it'd work out just because they give him other benefits as well. (Or some Garrison benefit would be neat. I don't care, something but as-is even with Markus' benefits from ports they still suck a ton of rear end) Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Sep 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Mods are cool and sometimes good.  some are fairly cursed tho, such as the Beautiful <X> ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
I'm the guy who yells about how modders are poo poo for daring to question CA's infallible gameplay tweaks. Edit: Those beautiful series mods are weird because it's not like an RPG where you can play dress up doll, your pretty-fied units are still going to get dismembered by a pissed off dragon ogre or Minotaur because it turns out witch elves don't do well against monstrous infantry
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:I'm the guy who yells about how modders are poo poo for daring to question CA's infallible gameplay tweaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:I'm the guy who yells about how modders are poo poo for daring to question CA's infallible gameplay tweaks. Three Kingdoms features Zheng Jiang, a mostly-fictional female faction leader described as "a bandit", and Liu Bei, a confirmed historical male faction leader described as "this guy had earlobes so long they touched his shoulders and he could swivel his head like an owl." Somehow, there are mods to make Zheng Jiang sexier for realism but not a single one to give me the histriocallly-accruate Liu Bei.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Would you all say the change is fine if the port was a free building slot? not like vampirates need even more money. An often repeated complaint is that the campaign is too easy and the player can snowball and drown the AI in higher level units. The port nerf is part of CA's attempt at adressing that complaint and making the game more difficult. The dumb thing is that loving around with the player's income doesn't really accomplish that. Sure, it does mean you have less income to build massive doomstacks with in the late game. But as a side effect it also screws with the player's ability to build up in the early game. The talk about the return-of-investment being bad now misses the point I think. I mean, making ports cheaper won't solve things. Money is the single resource in this game that you need to do anything. And doing things during your turn is what's fun. Passing a turn because you're too broke to do anything, is not fun. Having lots toys at your disposable in the form of various units is fun. Having only access to two or three different units gets boring when that takes way too long. Limiting the player's ability to do anything in the game is a very basic, but often kinda lovely way to address difficulty. I would much rather see CA try to improve their AI, or experiment with the point system and core/special/rare slots from the tabletop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Three Kingdoms features Zheng Jiang, a mostly-fictional female faction leader described as "a bandit", and Liu Bei, a confirmed historical male faction leader described as "this guy had earlobes so long they touched his shoulders and he could swivel his head like an owl." There were a not-insignificant amount of people complaining that Aranessa Saltspite, the double amputee mutant pirate lady wasn't hot enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
When did CA say the port nerf was to make the campaign harder?
Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Sep 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Fangz posted:When did CA say the port nerf was to make the campaign harder? CA Reddit AMA posted:You have probably noticed that with this update we have made a number of changes to change up the difficulty of the campaign and provide a bit more of a challenge in particular on the harder difficulties, this was one of our goals going into the update from the feedback we have received from our fans. Why else did you think the port nerf was for though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Raygereio posted:Why else did you think the port nerf was for though? As far as I can see the port nerf (in principle if not in extent) is really about rebalancing between inland factions and strategies and coastal strategies/factions. If there's an issue that the coastal factions usually have an easy time of things and it's a no brainer for Empire for instance to always open by trying to take Marienburg, that's a problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
The problem with the port nerfs isn't even the income provided, having 200 for regular t5 ports, and 600 for special t5 ports is fine. The problem is the 9-10k price for regular t5 ports, and the 12k+ price for special t5 ports. If they just hotfixed in a nerf to the cost of the initial buildings, the income nerfs would be completely fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
It's a no-brainer to gun for good provinces and not bad ones, was that a problem? I assume we want the campaign map to have meaning and not just "a frictionless floating elf island meets the spherical mummy desert in a flat plain" Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Sep 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It's a no-brainer to gun for good provinces and not bad ones, is that a problem? That in itself is not a problem, the problem is when there's an obvious set of good provinces to go for, which leaves too much of the map underutilised. So I think some measure of port nerfage is fine to even out the goodness of provinces somewhat and make different strats more equal in viability. quote:I assume we want the campaign map to have meaning and not just "a frictionless floating elf island meets the spherical mummy desert in a flat plain" Changing port incomes doesn't mean the map doesn't have meaning any more. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Sep 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Xan posted:I'd rather wait for CA to address it than use some guy's attempt on the internet to do what he thinks is fair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Fangz posted:As far as I can see the port nerf (in principle if not in extent) is really about rebalancing between inland factions and strategies and coastal strategies/factions. If there's an issue that the coastal factions usually have an easy time of things and it's a no brainer for Empire for instance to always open by trying to take Marienburg, that's a problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Reducing the effectiveness of the good provinces is a better method of doing things than making every other province better IMO. They probably went too far with the ports but inevitably certain factions end up controlling all the territory anyway. I'd much prefer they have 1 or 2 of their dozen provinces or whatever be money factories or super special vs all 12 of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Except that ports are how people make money. Yeah its a fantasy setting but for the past x years ports were a great way to make money in this fantasy game and now suddenly they are not. Like Edgar Allen Ho said, people go for good provinces. If CA wants to make inland provinces/factions better, they need to do something to improve those factions, not poo poo all over the currently good ones to make the bad ones look better in comparison. I don't know that inland was bad for any game 1 base faction. Like there's a whole row of Drakenhof, KaK, Black Crag, Eight Peaks to fight over if you live near the game one mountains with literally "Mount Gunbad" as the ultimate prize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
I haven't had the chance to play the new stuff much, but it seems to me that one redeeming quality of war wagons is their low unit count and armor, so they're pretty good for soaking up low-AP missile fire from skinks and skaven without losing entities. The regular non-mortar version still seems pretty underwhelming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
The RoR War Wagon is also really good since a Hellblaster that can reposition easily is really fun. The normal ones just really suck though
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Looks like CA are on the case for the port issue. https://twitter.com/totalwar/status/1172156482382704640?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 17:42
|
|
