|
tithin posted:How long will we need to wait to get the megamap? a few months like twwh2? Nothing announced yet, but probably. We should know in a week or two what the schedule is for the next year-ish.
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
SoftNum posted:is there still a goonhams discord for tww? https://discord.gg/jAtjDRJa
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
DaysBefore posted:I survived the Rome II launch, I can survive this. And besides I'm sure I'll be too busy having fun getting owned by daemons to notice anything less than literally gamebreaking Nothing here seems to approach Rome II levels of release jank. As I recall, there were a lot of warning signs for that game during pre-release reveals, whereas all of the streamers who have been playing WH3 constantly for the past 2-4 weeks all largely agree that the game is good. There are bugs and imbalances, but relatively few of each. For balance, the only real faction-wide offender seems to be Tzeentch's infinite regen being busted (which, to be fair, is goddamn stupid because people raised that concern the second that ability was revealed last fall so how the hell did nothing change since then); otherwise, everything else seems to mostly just be numbers tweaks or maybe wait on DLC to expand rosters a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Scott Forstall posted:Hold the 3 main Kislev settlements for 10 turns, then he is available. *as Kislev
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:To me the idea of playing Chaos without Chaos warriors is a bit like playing wood elves without elves. I mean, yeah, you can have a tree army if you want but you are missing an important and iconic part of the faction. I think it's more like playing a "Tree Spirits" faction without having waywatchers. Like, sure, there's an argument there but it's totally understandable to exclude them in favor of having more of the titular unit types.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Normal regeneration was typically countered via burst damage, which barrier negates… and it was already OP enough even then that fire damage was changed for game 3 to specifically counter regen. In principle the counter to barrier would be sustained combat, but tzeentch is a skirmish faction with tons of tools to disengage, peel, or lock down opponents. If barrier was on certain select units it might be OK, but on flyers especially it’s extremely broken. Not quite “unbeatable” broken, but certainly “favored against everyone” broken.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:Not sure about a good resource, but a couple good rules of thumb for Total Warhammer: There's literally a faction with zero ranged units, and another one that has exactly one... which is high-tier, a single entity, and plays out as a hybrid anyway. I think your assumptions are a bit dated, friend.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:god i hope it aint this. lustria and naggaroth and ulthuan all super squeezed sucks Look, something's gotta give here, it's just not reasonable to have a 700+ province map. Everything is shrunk, even the Old World to an extent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2022 06:45
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't remember the release for 1 or 2 being this rough You remember wrong, I think. As I recall, TW1 was more-or-less a clean release although it had a much smaller scope in retrospect. Mechanically it was simpler than some of what TW2 gave out as FLC, much less DLC, and people had many complaints about the climate system, the overall campaign balance, and the lack of variety in certain regions (hello Badlands!). TW2 had similar bugs to 3, although perhaps not to the same degree, and the players had a similar rapid path from "this new campaign is kinda neat" to "this new campaign has some poo poo that is really annoying". A couple rosters were heavy criticized (most notably Skaven, but IIRC there was some pushback on DE/HE feeling a bit samey as well). Not to mention that TW2 had the gigantic Norsca ordeal once they released Mortal Empires. Overall I think WH3's not been wildly out-of-line; some things might have been a bit exacerbated by the difficulties of working remote but overall I'm glad they released what they did, when they did it. The game is very playable, and it has that same capability as every TW game to get extremely entertaining tactical fights in those instances the stars align. The raw content in the new races is pretty good, most of the major mechanical changes are improvements (even if they need some iteration still), and the campaign holds up for 30-50 hours easy which is great since I consider it to be a prequel of sorts for Immortal Empires anyway. I personally never went back to Vortex either after the first 30-50 hours, although I know others did. And as far as saying "this will never get as good as Warhammer 2", well, I consider this to still be the same game on a fundamental level. The title "TW:WH3" has always just been a way to market a fancy expansion pack; you're paying more than normal but in exchange you're getting a ton of new factions, 3-4 new campaigns with the prologue/MP, and a pretty good number of general quality-of-life improvements. The trend is still upward, even if there's a step back here and there. That's not to say Immortal Empires will suddenly "fix" everything either, because that's just not a reasonable expectation for a game of this scope. But I do think that a lot of people are buying into the counter-hype just as hard as the original hype, and similarly need to temper their imagined expectations to be a bit more realistic instead of just parroting reddit. I can sympathize with the issues some people are having with certain hardware setups; I've been there and it's extremely frustrating, but unfortunately it's just something that happens with programs and I expect that COVID had a big influence on the capability of the devs to check a wide range of setups. The in-game stuff is, largely, just numbers or design philosophy that people don't agree with the devs on. That's not really a failure in my eyes, and it's easy enough to tweak back in time if the feedback requests it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:The best time I had with WH2 was playing the non-vortex DLC characters on the Vortex map. Grom and the Vampirates in particular come to mind. NoNotTheMindProbe posted:NGL a lot of complaining across the entire series has been from people having to fight battles in a game that revolves around fighting battles. The most fun I've had with 3 so far is in having PvP fights with some buddies. I didn't get to do that with 2, but it's been a real blast for this game. Fighting against an AI just doesn't compare with fighting a human, and it lets me skip all the stupid campaign stuff that exists for every Total War - i.e. three random stacks from a faction half the map away beeline to siege your capitol, you misclick an army one pixel too far and it's suddenly outside of reinforce range, you have to decide if you want to auto to lose your best unit at 10% strength or if it's worth fighting the 1000th curbstomp skirmish of the game... It's much nicer to just grab a friend, random a map, and be shooting ogres in their fat loving faces with the very best dragon-cannons Cathay has to offer in a matter of minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2022 06:53
|
|
|
Vagabong posted:What was so poo poo about it though? The ritual army spawns were frustrating, but you both got to choose when they arrived and could just save scum to know where they were coming from. On top of that, because you got to intervene in a rivals final ritual just straight up ignore the race and play it as a normal conquest game with a different map to ME. Any strategy that begins "you can just save scum" is inherently bad design, IMO. Unless you're a game explicitly created with that in mind, like a tactical top-down shooter or something. And to the larger discussion, as others have alluded the reason there's Vortex/Ursun campaigns is because some players really enjoy them. (Im)Mortal Empires is for the powergamers, the people who'll get hundreds or even thousands of hours invested. Vortex/Ursun are more for the <100 hour crowd; they'll play for a month or so at release, maybe pick it up again for a couple days after a DLC. It's something structured that you can complete and say "beat that game, on to something else". There's nothing wrong with that, and as I said before I think both campaigns actually hold up pretty well for the first 30-50 hours.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
GolfHole posted:I only got 9 hours into this game and it feels like it was made by someone who doesn't like Total War games. is this you or a copypasta
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Settment battle rant: CA made all the mistakes that GCCM mods did. In that the maps look pretty but are painful to fight in. There's areas your Missile units will snap into place but there's loving houses right in front of them and they won't shoot at all. The barricades are neat but they are seldom in useful locations. Walled settlements just add a few wall sections that don't seem to buy you much time, because enemies start too close and there's not enough towers that will be able to shoot at enemies. There are neat little 'bridge' sections but you can't place Missile units sideways on them to give them an elevated platform to shoot from. For barricades specifically, remember that there’s four types. Some of the positions aren’t meant to block the enemy, but to buff *you*.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:I'm guessing it's an opening for future dlc I... actually doubt it? There's three more "whereabouts known" siblings plus the Monkey King, that gets Cathay up to six total lords without accounting for a possible curveball. I wouldn't rule it out entirely but it doesn't seem like anything we'd see for several years.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:I think it's mass. A lot of horse cavalry will get stuck in the enemy and it will be tedious to cycle charge them. On top of it they usually take a lot of damage during this process It’s not mass. The reason cav feel weird is that cavalry charges don’t do damage; attack animations do. It’s unintuitive that a charge that bowls over an entire company is often worse than one that leaves the units on their feet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:bear riders are the best unit in the kislev roster Memes aside, they’re probably second best. The war sleds are the strongest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
Don't forget that the most remarkable thing about WH2 wasn't it's peak, but it's consistency and longevity. Three Kingdoms was the release with the massively surprising numbers, Warhammer's always been the one that chugs along with constant improvements and content releases. IIRC Warhammer 2 actually improved it's player count over time, which is basically unheard-of since most AAA titles lean on a strong release peak. For multiplayer specifically, as others have said the numbers are down largely because end-of-game WH2 was simply a better environment than at-release WH3. WH2 has more factions, who all individually have more options in playstyle, and who collectively had literal years of balancing. I think domination is fine; it probably could use a couple number tweaks but I do think it's a better format in the long run. It has it's downsides but ultimately it's nice to not need a dozen house rules just to ensure that both players make an honest attempt to fight in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2022 07:34
|
|
|
Vagabong posted:This is definitely exacerbated by the fact that despite a fair amount of improvements TW3 is fundamentally the same game as 2. I honestly think a lot of the muted reaction stems from the fact that the game is essentially a very ambitious expansion pack. If you've been playing 2 for the past 5 years straight you're going to find the new release far less novel than 1 or 2 were at launch. This is so weird because it was obviously going to be the same game. Debatably, across the entire franchise it's always been the same fundamental game. The last truly big change was when they went to a fully simulated strategic map (with armies moving by an allotted distance) instead of a simple RISK-style map (with armies moving to adjacent provinces). Maybe you could consider the addition of magic as a large change too (more buttons to click!). What are people expecting?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I played 1 and 2 at launch, and admittedly didn't play them nearly as much at launch as I did after updates, but imo they were both more playable when they came out than 3 right now. Even aside from that though, I think expecting more polish from a game coming out four and a half years later with the same basic foundation isn't an unreasonable ask, and if they weren't able to do that at launch they should have delayed the game again. But yeah I think it would really do a ton of good to add a toggle option to disable the bear god race if they're not ready to push workshop support, and unlike the longer term fixes a lot of us are hoping for, it would be trivially easy for them to do it. I get why it might feel insulting to the work of people on their team who put a lot of effort into creating the campaign, but ultimately if players don't like it they shouldn't make players have to deal with it. Nah, 2 was pretty bad coming out too, and for many of the same reasons as 3: the "new" game was a branch off the older one and a lot of post-release changes on the older game weren't ported into the parallel build. People largely hated Vortex after a single playthrough, Mortal Empires was initially a disappointment due to extremely long load times and the Norsca fiasco, and some of the new races had clear roster holes (not to mention there were only four playable races at 2's launch!). I'm pretty confident that WH3 is actually a step up from how WH2 was at initial release, at least outside of actual game-breaking performance issues (I personally had no problem with either release so I don't have any metrics to go off of, even anecdotally). From a "game content" perspective it's a clear improvement, with seven-and-a-half factions that all have unique identities that more-or-less play out well on both the tactical and strategic side - compare that to WH2, which had four... of which two had very similar rosters (HE/DE), a third was missing much of their tactical identity (Skaven), and the fourth had a very lackluster strategic implementation that actually remains to this day (LM). What's really the cause of most of this bitching is not WH3 release quality vs WH2 release quality. It's the jump from the end of the previous game to the release of the new one, e.g. WH1/WH2 and WH2/WH3. For the 1/2 transition you were going from eight (E, D, VC, GS, WE, BM, WoC, N) to four factions while the game 1 races all had minimal effects on the strategic map anyway (outside of Norsca). The 2/3 transition is going from fourteen factions, all of which are now much more impactful, down to seven-and-a-half while the strategic map influence is mostly the same on a per-faction basis. Sure, on a relative basis it's similar but people aren't considering a ratio, they care about the raw amount of "lost" content. WH3 is... fine. Radical statement, I know. What it isn't is a game that's been polished for four years straight to address player concerns and iterate on good, if weakly-implemented ideas. What's actually great about WH3 is that basically all of the complaints people are having are fixable; the core gameplay is still solid, there's been some really great new ideas to build on (outposts!), and most importantly the soul of the game is still the same. So long as CA is committed to the same long tail as with WH2 I'm not really worried.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
[shrug]... personally I think that all that they truly messed up was not releasing Immortal Empires at launch. Nobody would care too much if the new campaign had some issues, if they could just fall back on the Big Sandbox.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I havent seen this and I disagree. The QoL improvements are great, but the polish is absolute rear end. And by "polish" I mean: All the stuff I bolded already existed in WH2. Maybe to a lesser degree, but only after literal years of tweaks driven from player feedback. Given the breadth of what's been added, and that to a significant degree all the new stuff was done independent of the existing game, I don't think things are in that bad of shape. The battle mechanics being wonky is annoying, but I can understand how it happened: someone messed up in the process of simultaneously branching off WH3 and while merging Three Kingdom tweaks and WH2 tweaks, then nobody really caught it because the battles still work, they're still fun for the <50 hour crowd, and many of them aren't that obvious until someone else points them out to you. Boris and Belakor probably are relatively late addons but I also expect that the people doing them didn't have any other things to do, for the same reason that Warriors of Chaos were made and released. Would you rather not have had them at all? As for not working on bugs for two months, I don't understand what makes you think that? Yes, CA has triaged the identified problems and have set up priorities, but that's very different from ignoring anything. And yes, the game is a multi-platform release from a major gaming company so they can't turn around patches at the same pace that a solo indie dev on Steam can. Most of all: WH2 still exists. Right now, WH3 is essentially an optional expansion pack for the larger TW:WH "game". In half a year once WH2 support has been cut off entirely it's a different story, but right now the only thing "forcing" people to play WH3 over 2 is fear of missing out. As I said more than a year ago: the floor of WH3 was to be an underpriced expansion pack on WH2, which in my mind was a totally reasonable thing to pre-order. Sinteres posted:Vortex was much easier to ignore for long periods of time (or forever if you just wanted to beat up the AI when they finished it and go for a domination victory)/had more to do with the actual strategic layer than 3's campaign, and mod support/Mortal Empires came much sooner than mod support/Immortal Empires will for this game. Also this release is pretty much just objectively more hosed when they're posting oh poo poo updates two weeks after launch about how spaghetti code makes fixes complicated and how they hear the criticism of the campaign in a way that they never really acknowledged about the Vortex. Like obviously the Norsca gently caress-up was significant in 2, but other than fighting against Norsca being a little more irritating, it didn't have much of an actual impact on players being able to play in any immediate sense, but just meant they'd have to wait a bit longer for DLC to come out. Specifically on the bolded point, I feel that Cathay and to a lesser degree Kislev do just fine as the generalist factions for game 3. Hell, the Ogres are actually somewhat of a generalist faction when being played (although not so much when being encountered). All three of those factions don't really have any big holes to fill - weaknesses, yes, but they've all got the bases of infantry/cavalry/ranged/siege/single entities/magic covered and at least a couple different viable tactical playstyles (in MP, even moreso in SP). The individual Demonic factions don't, but being so focused really fits in with their overall theme. I'd argue that if any factions across any of the series should remain hyper-specialized, it's them. Also, it's pretty unfair to use "they've admitted that things aren't perfect!" as a negative because if they hadn't said anything the outcry would have been "they're not listening to us!". What would you rather have happened? Total radio silence? Excruciating technical details on which driver is loving things up?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:
"After a mere 500 hours, I have determined this game is not worth my time"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
Theswarms posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/t7axbx/many_parts_of_wh3_including_hero_traits_are_not/ I can believe that the first WH3 build branched off three years ago; what I'd be a bit more skeptical on is that nobody at CA considered "how are we merging this stuff back in?" at any point since then. It's possible, for sure, and clearly they've been inconsistent on the numbers they've been balancing to, but there's no way they'd make the exact same fuckup twice in the same series... right? Right? Someone went to the effort of back-porting Ogres to WH2, which might be a sign that whoever was doing end-of-life WH2 poo poo was playing around with both builds and how to combine them. Angrymantium posted:I think part of the point of releasing an entirely new game (with identical gameplay as a feature) is that it brings in more people than a DLC pack would. So there's reasoning from a marketing perspective, even though I agree with you that it would have been better for everyone if we just got a higher priced DLCs with the chaos and human factions or something. Remember that we're still in some version of pandemic-world, so things might just be slower and less smooth than it once was. I would not look at the difference in timing and immediately think "oh no CA's dumping this game"; they've publicly stated multiple times that WH3 will have a long post-release development tail. And it certainly isn't a money issue, they've made plenty from the WH series. The licensing fees are probably not that expensive either - GW has a lot of incentive to keep TW:WH alive and well as they start working on The Old World. CA has more-or-less reinvigorated the entire fantasy line singlehandedly, both sides are profiting and want to keep it going. It's also very much an overstatement to say "TWW3 was released after all of the things that made TWW2 good, and somehow didn't retain any of it". Can you truthfully say nothing of what made WH2 good is here? Personally, I'm having a pretty good time shooting Chaos in the face and that feels very much like something WH2 was good at. Open field battles generally are fun (especially in MP); sieges are generally worth auto-resolving (which isn't any different from WH2, and at least the maps are usually more interesting in the cases I *do* need to fight it out). Magic feels pretty good. The voice lines are delightfully campy yet well-acted, the in-battle soundscape is amazing, the visuals are at a pretty insane standard for a strategy game... the overall aesthetic feel of the game is still very much in-line with the previous titles in the series (UI color change notwithstanding). Seriously, I'm not just trying to be a 100% stan for CA here but the echo chamber between SA, the official forums, and reddit is getting pretty ridiculous. The game isn't perfect but neither was WH2. People had a pretty long list of complaints for that game, even at the end. Has that list gotten longer? Sure, but we've also got a ton of new toys in exchange and that's a pretty fair deal... considering that WH2 is still playable. Anecdotally I would claim that most people aren't complaining unless they have 30+ hours in, and they aren't seriously considering quitting until they have 60+... both of which are pretty good metrics at release. Getting longer playtimes than that requires either lightning in a bottle, a lack of competition, or a dedication to post-release improvement. No dev can ever guarantee the first, a sequel by definition won't have the second, but CA's track record for this title would seem to indicate that we're going to get the third. People need to chill out a bit and accept they mostly enjoyed the game's initial offering without wanting to keep diving in for three dozen more campaign runs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I have no idea what to say to you. You're telling me that there is a campaign in WH2? Like thats news to me? The problem with game 3 is that the main campaign sucks and you're telling me that WH2 has a campaign too? Or that it sucks too? Because it sucks worse in WH3. Which is my point. Same with tech trees, which are mostly fine in WH2; in WH3 they are putrid. My point was that all the bolded poo poo wasn't very substantially different than in WH2. I hated Vortex on release, and never touched it in the past 3-4 years. There are factions that are wildly unbalanced in WH2 (certainly so at release, and I would say even at the end - at least on an LL basis, unless you want to argue that the Sisters, Clan Skyre, or Warriors of Chaos are all on the same level). The AI using campaign abilities (most notably, agent abilities) is almost always awful and everyone modded that out which is why they've forgotten. Siege battles were terrible which is why they were reworked in the first place. And so on and so forth, I think you can get my point from here. I don't think that, on a point-by-point basis, things in WH3 are as bad as people are bitching about. There are specific examples of all the things you listed, but if CA has proven anything over the six+ years of TW:WH development it's that they very often gently caress up the initial attempt but fix it in successive iterations. That's actually incredibly hard to do consistently and is something that I don't think people give enough credit for. Almost every single thing that people point to as a strength of the series was something that, at one point, was considered loving awful. Magic? Check. Game mechanics flavor? Check. Battles? Depends on how you split up the argument, but I'd claim that probably yes. A majority of the individual factions and LLs? Oh god yes, almost everyone has had their moment in the sun to be lambasted. So yes, feel free to complain, but people should be trying to have some perspective here. WH3 released with six-and-a-half entirely new factions; not just new in the "new to the game" sense, but new in that they all had at best minimal background to draw from. And CA, by and large, nailed them all. Cathay feels great, Kislev feels great, Khorne and Nurgle and Slaanesh and Tzeentch feel great and unique to each other. CA even managed to release a Chaos United lord in a way that wasn't a loving trainwreck. The game is totally... fine. It's not perfect, but it's a great base to keep working from and I think that a lot of the die-hard fans are just in a downward spiral after comparing what they got to what they (IMO, unreasonably) expected. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:No see according to orangelex this is a problem in WH2, too, so we're not allowed to complain about it. I mean, you can, but the tech trees in WH2 were all pretty bad to start with and some of them still are. Hell, the Empire's has sucked since day 1 of game 1! I just don't get a lot of value from continually seeing bitching about it. It's exhausting to see relatively minor quibbles get endlessly multiplied in the echo chambers. I can understand the individuals that have real issues just getting the game to run, that's a genuine must-immediately-correct issue and CA's treating it that way. The complaints on how a tech's benefit is too low? Yeah, that's just not that big of a concern if I can still get into a battle with my loving bear riders and my badass ice queen to murderize the technicolor dream demons led by the biggest bird demon with two heads. Should it be improved? Yeah, sure. Will it? Almost certainly yes. Does it have to happen right now? No.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I didn't though, and played well under 30 hours before I decided I won't touch it again until mod support goes live despite not having any other brand new game I'm dying to play. If you had a different experience that's good and I'm happy for you, but when you tell other people they enjoyed a game they didn't enjoy and are just getting caught in an anti-hype cycle or something it definitely seems like you're closer to a 100% stan for CA than you'd like to believe. The game's getting far more criticism than either 1 or 2 did at launch, with a bigger admission of problems by CA than either of those launches had, so maybe the game actually has problems and people aren't just imagining things or being contrarian or whatever it is you think they're doing. Like if nothing else if this was a smooth launch of a fully complete game we'd have workshop support by now, which I genuinely think could ameliorate most of the worst issues, but instead we have no idea when it's coming, which means it's likely not coming for quite some time still. Frankly, there's just a lot more people playing now than back then - and those people also have a lot more time invested than before. They're more geared to find the problems and more inclined to immediately clamor for them to be corrected. The volume of criticism is not necessarily a good metric for the actual scale of issues (although I suppose I would listen to an argument that the perception of issues can often make them worse they they actually are). If you think WH2 is better right now that's a totally justified opinion, but I don't think that it's necessary the majority opinion either. It all depends on what you wanted out of the game; if the goal was "I want to play Mortal Empires, but with bears" then yes obviously it's not there yet. I, on the other hand, had a goal of "I want to play with bears" and for that WH3 is doing fine. The things that frustrate me most with the game are the things that have always frustrated me about Total War games; the series at large has IMO always been the triumph of flavor over mechanics, and tactical gameplay over strategic gameplay. I haven't run into any technical issues, and the random little gameplay oddities haven't felt like they're all that far beyond what I've come to expect. Weird poo poo happens in battles but by-and-large they go ok, and the AI does a lot of weird poo poo on the strategic layer but by-and-large I can still reach a point where there's a reasonable but not overbearing challenge. Fundamentally, WH3 is still the same game as WH2 and WH1, and I'm not so locked into the specifics that I keep getting despondent or angry over what isn't there. However, the reason for that is precisely because I wasn't playing hundreds of hours for the past year; the people that played the most WH2 are exactly the ones that a) will notice the small details very quickly, b) will post that they are Wrong And Must Be Corrected, and c) will read others posting on anything they may have missed and as such will feel continually barraged by all the multitude of things that Just Aren't Right. It's like if someone moved all the furniture in your living room three inches to the left; the people who lived there (e.g. you) would notice and get increasingly uncomfortable with nothing quite feeling right and that the left side of the couch is now in direct sunlight from the back window which gets too hot in the summer, but mere visitors probably don't care very much because it's still a living room with a couch, TV, end table, or whatever. Could WH3 be better? Yes, of course it could. Could it have used more time to cook? Yes again, but every game can always use more time and tweaks yet at some point a decision has to be made to release what you've got. I entirely understand that everyone has different metrics on what they find acceptable but as I said above it's just really exhausting to continually hear the same arguments, again and again, on what's mostly a Good Game and a Good Game that's going to get fixed, at that. People are getting so fixated on the downward spiral of agreeing loudly about The Bad Things that the thread hasn't really done any of the proper wild speculation on things like when exactly Immortal Empires will come out, which LLs will be moved, what bizarre change will make the Dawi suck again, what FLC LL are we going to get as a mea culpa for the release backlash, or what Katarin's sled will look like once she gets it. I also wouldn't say that we have a "bigger admission of problems by CA" either, unless we're just going to forget about the Norsca saga entirely. Which, yes, it's still possible we get to that point once we get more details on Immortal Empires. And, yes, that would be really dumb and a pretty massive failure by CA... but we don't know that we're there yet because CA never made a specific promise about timelines. It's all been assumptions, which are fun to make but need to be dropped without lingering animosity if proven wrong. Speaking of assumptions, I also wouldn't claim that "if this was a smooth launch of a fully complete game we'd have workshop support by now", because all CA ever said on the subject was that modding support was coming in time. Not when, not even "soon" (unless I'm misremembering), just that it was coming.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2022 05:21
|
|
|
Shumagorath posted:What was wrong with Norsca in WH2? I didn't finish the campaign but they seemed fine. They were supposed to be playable at the same time that Mortal Empires came out, but due to issues with separate builds it took something like four months to implement them - and at CA's own admission, this significantly delayed the schedule for DLC releases. Sinteres posted:I don't just think WH2 is better right now, I think WH2 was better at launch, and certainly better two weeks in since it already had mod support and was very soon going to have Mortal Empires. Would I rather play base game 2 right now than base game 3? Maybe not, because I've already spent hundreds of hours playing a better version of it, but I can't want to play it less than I want to play base game 3 since that value is 0 at the moment. Yes the factions in this game are more interesting, but like I've said before, they don't do me any good if my problems with the game prevent me from wanting to play it at all. Neither 1 nor 2 had me feeling like the game wasn't ready to be released, but it's obviously true that 3 wasn't (and that streamers massively downplayed issues before launch). I've been digging through patch notes and I cannot find anything that references when mod support was added. As best I can tell, the assembly kit came out in October 5 (https://steamdb.info/app/651460/) following WH2's release on September 28. WH3 was released on February 17 so we're still two weeks out from the pace of the previous game if this assembly kit release date is the same time that modding was on-line. Now, it's true that WH3 might not make that same deadline but we don't know that yet. It's possible, albeit somewhat unlikely, that CA rolls out their first support patch at the same time they unlock Immortal Empires and modding. I personally haven't seen anything that feels like streamers "massively downplayed" issues from launch. Is there something specific that feels that way to you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:October 5th (when the workshop launched for 2) is one week after September 28th and it's been two and a half weeks already since February 17th. If we were on the timeline for Warhammer 2 we would have had workshop support on February 24th, and Immortal Empires would be out on March 17th. It sounds like we probably won't even have the first big support patch by then, and if workshop support is coming with it they haven't said so. Right gently caress I can read calendars I promise, something in my brain was reading October as November. Fair point then. Sinteres posted:I think Legend talking about how the game is basically not worth playing right now is obviously a lot stronger than the language he used in his pre-launch review. It's not that I think streamers were deliberately lying, but I think they felt like they were in a weird position where they'd been brought in as part of the marketing team for the game and maybe didn't feel free to be as blunt as they might have otherwise been. Plus obviously telling people the game's poo poo when they wanted to keep making money off of streaming it gave them an incentive to tone it down too. Of course I can't go in their heads and know for sure what was going on, but the feeling I got from most of the reviews before launch was more 'really fun but with some concerns' while post launch I think a lot of them (who aren't outright negative now) have flipped the order of that to 'many concerns, but there's fun to be had.' And they'd already played more hours before launch than almost any of us have played since, so I don't think it's all about burning out since launch. [shrug]... the only streamers I watch are the MP guys and they largely are having a good time. There's a couple specific units and spells that are overtuned, and Nurgle is pretty clearly dumpster-tier, but I'm not getting the same interpretation as you seem to be. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I've been pretty vocal about disliking the game but have not said its the worst game ever. I'm saying that the new campaign and a number of other things about the game suck. I've played three campaigns halfway through, each time struggling through new lovely things that they added while occasionally having fun with some of the new mechanics or factions. Because you have to play the game to realize you dont like it, ya know? I cant know I dont like it without playing it. So now that I've put in ~25 hours of being annoyed at a number of things I've already posted about and wont go on about again, I wish I could refund my money and my time because I could not find a way to redeem the horribly dumb poo poo CA did with it. The pre-release streams by the content creators made the game seemed fine, but getting my hands on it showed me otherwise. Now we're seeing guys like Legend getting disgusted with CA's handling of it because he's been pointing out some of these issues for months and CA just went on full steam ahead. I enjoy the core gameplay loop of upgrading cities to get better units to fight fun battles with, and I can still do that with the game. The problem is that the AI is more chickenshit than ever, 75%+ of all battles are settlement battles, and settlement battles are even more tedious and annoying than they were before. So, with other negative additions to the game, despite the QoL improvements and fun new rosters, I'm really annoyed at CA for the dumb poo poo they did. I'm going to stop posting about it now. So a) it sounds like Legend is pretty specifically a catalyst here, and b) Legend's post is very much not saying that he told CA ahead of time, if anything it's the opposite and he feels that he wasn't involved until too late in the process ("In the lead up to launch I, and all other creators, were drip fed boring meetings, blogs and other unimportant information that was most of the time 1-2 days before it was public knowledge. There was not a single opportunity to actually get involved in the development of Warhammer 3 nor were we even informed about what the campaign was going to be about."). By his own admission there's only one specific issue that truly bothers him, which is the Soul Race mechanic. Now, you seem to have a separate concern regarding settlement battles which is also a valid point of feedback, but in my own anecdotal experience WH2 plays out very similarly with the heavy majority of fights being sieges, and sieges sucking pretty hard unless you just auto-resolve them away. So yes, it's annoying and bad, but it's not really any different other than that WH3 was supposed to be "fixing" sieges and ultimately didn't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dont know why you're bothering to quote me when we frequently talk past each other and I said I was going to stop posting about it. I dont know what you're trying to prove by constantly trying to argue with me about me not liking the game. Whats the point? Legend is not a catalyst here. He also said he provided feedback once he did get his hands on it. I'm mostly just trying to understand what people are actually getting mad about, and whether it's an actually justified anger or just a vicious feedback loop of minor things getting magnified. Like for Sinteres, I can understand saying "I wanted mods online earlier because that's what WH2 did" - I might not agree on whether that should be an expectation up front, but I can get why they would think that. However, that's not necessarily something to get mad over IMO, and it sucks to see decent games from pretty decent devs get ripped apart without justification. If the only people posting are the ones who are pissed off, it'll just keep reinforcing the negativity which makes everyone get mad. It's a healthier thread if someone steps in to give an alternate viewpoint. In this specific case, half of your comment that I quoted was inaccurately referencing an outside poster in Legend so I wanted to both provide and get clarification. And yes, he probably did give some feedback but that was in mid-January at the earliest, when nothing of actual significance is possibly going to change at that point. The best that CA can reasonably do is fix minor bugs or obvious balance tweaks for the release candidate while making notes for future patches, which is exactly what looks to have happened?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Vargs posted:Even if the questionable campaign mechanics stop being an issue when ME is released, it's still a bit of a bummer because I was pretty excited to get some friends in for the fantastic new co-op features. But with only TWW3 they'd presumably be relegated to the default campaign, and it's an impossible sell to tell them to pick up this $60 video game and also the previous two entries so we can play together. Well, the default campaign and the kislev one and the fight over cathay one...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
Slyphic posted:I finally just uninstalled this game. I gave it so many chances, tried every faction, and I just hate it. Evil Genius 2 is alright though?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
They’ve only patched game-killing bugs so far, nothing for balance or quality-of-life. We’re probably getting a patch this week but I’d expect that to be similar still.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Deketh posted:I'm amazed this supply line bug will persist unfixed for so long. I suppose it doesn't matter too much to me as I can go back to all the content in WH2 I haven't touched yet but loving hell. Their goal is to make the game playable and stable for everyone first, before addressing balance or minor bugs. Can’t fault them for that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
quote:NuKislev was ill thought out and cheaply made. CA is always right apparently. Like for example the insistence that Streliski with axe guns were the greatest idea and no accommodation could be made for the original units or the hideous Wargon Wagon ice. It was more than rushed, there is a very prideful ethos which can not listen to any fan feedback at CA. That pride results in them cutting content as was seen in Chaos Daemons rather than admit some races such as Tzeentch had a barely existent rooster. That pride also made them ignore any feedback from content creators such as Legend of Total war who told them that the rifts spam and being forced to do the story every playthrough was a bad idea. I want Warhammer 3 to do well so we can hopefully see Southern Realms(done faithfully and properly unlike Kislev). quote:Look, it's one thing for Elves, who are an elegant and immortal race, and likely better in some physical ways (men and women) to be represented on the battlefield. Women of the race playing a more distant role, not being hardened phalangists or corsairs. Every time…
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Absolutely, and I would do the same thing. My confusion about why its taking so long is "dont they have literally hundreds of people working on WH3 right now?". Because putting more bodies on stability fixes has dramatically diminishing returns so I'm surprised and disappointed they cant put like... one guy that knows what he's doing on bugfixing? Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to be lovely and I have no idea how their development process works or is structured, but having experience in software dev I know just putting literally everyone on fixing stability will only be maybe 10% more effective than putting exactly half of everyone on it. I'm probably thinking too hard about this. They actually probably don’t. Many of the people that worked on the game are graphics/sound/animation specialists who don’t code, others have moved on to DLCs or the next big game, and even for the ones that remain they’re likely working in parallel - each person fixing one assigned problem independent of the others. The time to fix any one problem isn’t sped up by the number of people, and given the complexity of merging all these different fixes together it means that CA is highly incentivized to do fewer, bigger updates anyway. CA isn’t planning in weeks for this game, they think in months and even years. They’re not in a huge rush for the non-stability bugs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:You do not think that they would be All Hands On Dogstile made most of my points for me, but I’ll also reiterate that the majority of people “working on the game” aren’t coders and wouldn’t be helpful in this matter regardless. Edit: I hate phone posting orangelex44 fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Mar 10, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Double Bill posted:Yes I can see CA looking at the game losing over 75% of its launch playerbase in only two weeks (steeper drop than in any previous TW game, including Rome 2 and Thrones of Britannia), and being the worst-reviewed main line TW game on Steam, and thinking "yeah we nailed it". WH3 also started at a much higher number than either one of those titles. By a *relative* percentage the drop is high, but using *absolute player counts* WH3 is doing just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Kislev is the harder of the two, but the missile heavy army means that lucking into favorable terrain is hugely beneficial, and it pairs well with slows. Ice Guard are a lot of fun and Kat+landmark building can get them cheaper than Kossars. The fights are tough (I went into a lot of their shortcomings earlier) but their trait customization for casters and atamans is fun and useful. They'll be really good in Immortal Empires for sure. Empire has way better cavalry, much more flexible magic and heroes, and doesn't have to depend on Harmony so they skew a bit more to the tactical offensive in general. Both nations are working off a similar battleplan, but it's more like the Wood Elves/High Elves split: they're definitely focusing onto different niches even if they can both choose to bring similar armies sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
Kanos posted:The Cathay roster as it stands is honestly substantially *less* fantastical than 90% of the factions in the game. It's mostly just standard military dudes/dudettes with some gunpowder and one or two magic fantasy units(terracottas, the compass). Don't forget the high fantasy that is females in combat roles. Unimaginable, really... But to your point, they're about as fantasy as the other human races. The Empire has steam tanks, Cathay has war balloons. Bretonnia has pegasi, Cathay has longma. Kislev has The Biggest Bear, Cathay has The Angriest Statue. At the end though, in most fights most of your troops will be bog-standard troops with spears, crossbows, horses, and if they're especially lucky, guns (and magic).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Onmi posted:Cathay is a very enjoyable "Combined Arms" roster. Like my issue with the Empire has always been that for an army that is "Faith, Steel and Gunpowder" the Steel kinda... sucked? Like your anvil was poo poo, your Gunpowder was an amazing hammer, but the Demigryphs, the Reiksguard, the State troops, even their Elite trooper Greatswords all... really sucked. Cathay is where the balance should be for the Empire I feel. Is the Cav amazing? No, but that's got more to do with the mechanics of Cavalry in WH3. And it has a flying cav unit. I think the Empire troops are... fine. None of them are the best-in-class, but they all do their job well. It's just easy to compare to your neighbors and feel inadequate though - you've got Bretonnian cavalry, Dwarven infantry, and Wood Elf archery.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
Onmi posted:I really disagree. The main MAIN issue is that for example... what's a better anvil? Spearmen, Swordsmen, Greatswords OR your Lord, Warrior Priests and Captains? The latter, because there is less friendly fire from your Helstorms and your mage. What do you want Cavalry to be able to do? Hammer the enemy, and pull out. Reiksguard and Empire Captains are far too slow for that, and Demigryph Knights are minced by things they rightly shouldn't. Even using them as Anti-Large is hilarious considering how few models they have and how most large units still destroy them. Nothing like... told me how bad the Empire was until WH3 where I go "Oh... Bear Riders are what Demigryphs wanna be. The War Sleds are what the War Wagon wants to be. Tzar Guard is what Greatswords wish they were." Reiksguard and the Empire heavy cav at large are a perfectly servicable hammer. I'm trusting the wiki here for stats: Reiksguard are 1150 as compared to Gryphon Legion at 1200. The units have the same damage, MA, LD, unit count, and total health. The Reiksguard have 1 less MD too although I suspect that's probably not intentional. Anyway, that extra 50 gold is buying you the fear, a bit more charge bonus, and some extra speed... but that's for a nation that specializes in cavalry. The Empire is getting a pretty OK deal here, I think. If you're firing Helstorms into your own troops then yeah, you're right they won't be a great anvil... but no offense, that sounds like user error and/or personal preference, not a problem with the unit. If you want to mass your giant AOE artillery, then yes you want to use SEM to bunch up the AI. But that's a choice, not a requirement, because the Empire roster is so broad and allows so many different archetypes. If all you want is cheap guys to hold the line for a while while you set up a more traditional hammer, then the Empire state troops do fine. They're certainly better than what Bretonnia rolls out, and in actual combat prowess I think they're better than Kislev too on a cost-for-cost basis (although the Kislev passive makes their units hold when they rightly shouldn't). Cathay beats them when in harmony but that's by design, Cathay is more defensive and less mobile overall so they're expected to have to hold with less support. And even then it's close; the Empire's basic Spearmen are debatably better than Peasant Long Spearmen despite costing 25 less. As far as War Bear Riders, they cost 200 more than Demigryphs so yeah they're going to be a good bit more capable. Ditto for Tzar Guard vs. Greatswords (either 100 or 200 difference, depending on the former's kit). War Wagons aren't on the wiki (lol), so I can't compare costs, but yeah... some units are just bad. It happens, but at least in this case it was to a unit that isn't really emblematic of it's race/ Nobody was really going "yes, the Empire should have really good missile chariots" in the way that Kislev's historical tabletop roster would indicate that War Sleds (or some equivalent) should be a major contributor. That being said, I think that some of the MP folks would argue that they're a bit overtuned at the moment anyway. As you said though, the Empire's premier branch of the army is indeed their ranged. Which is fine, that doesn't make their other units instantly bad - just fairly costed. Although I'd also argue that the Empire has some really excellent light troops in the Free Company and Pistoliers/Outriders, as well as the most flexible artillery corps of any human roster (actually, probably any roster except the Dwarves). orangelex44 fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Mar 15, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2022 05:53
|
|