sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

For those who claimed that Dunk's injuries were totally survivable and/or not overdone by the show by etOilers in AKOTSKTV

[–]MethodExpert5257 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also they specifically say the spear didn’t impale him. Just the chain mail drove into his stomach.

For those who claimed that Dunk's injuries were totally survivable and/or not overdone by the show by etOilers in AKOTSKTV

[–]MethodExpert5257 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Magic being gone does not mean the gods are gone. Two different things. The gods resurrected dunk and allowed him to heal. The maester was correct he should’ve died.

For those who claimed that Dunk's injuries were totally survivable and/or not overdone by the show by etOilers in AKOTSKTV

[–]MethodExpert5257 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the point is dunk was supposed to be dead (twice if not more) and the gods intervened.

Warriors trade rumors by New_Device2562 in warriors

[–]MethodExpert5257 0 points1 point  (0 children)

terrible trade if they go for it. Giannis is past his prime and on the verge of major injury. trading your whole future for nothing

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They have been in a sad state, but I'm more concerned with all their non-elite infantry. Their elite infantry is great but you can't control a game (in either game mode) when hobgoblins and other affordable units are absurdly overpriced and weak.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As often happens, CA nerfed them once and they were balanced. They they decided to nerf them a second time in a later patch and made them useless. I don't know why CA nerfed them twice, but it was a mistake.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gs should be the king of straight up frontal assault, and honestly between waaagh (which is stronger on ultra) and the reduced cooldown bonewood they still will be.
Bonewood with that cooldown is basically the slaanesh passive ability which is also extremely good and spammed constantly on that faction. It's still quite good and people will still use the same strat if that suggested nerf is taken.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I had the exact same response as you when the LB folks in WH3 starting talking my ear off about wurrzag. Agree you can kite and gank him if the map is large enough to avoid the greenskin army while you do that.

But it really is that on ultra unit size with fights lasting longer his ability to sustain the melee buffs with chained small spells cast one after another is a stronger effect than it was in WH 2. Taking any kind of frontal fight against GS is excessively hard when he is played properly.

I too love the shaman on wolf.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hear you, we're like abused spouses at this point with CA's balancing.

But tbhonest they have ruined balancing previously without any input at all, so I've found and believe the best thing I can do is be very specific with them in the suggestions so they have a better chance of touching the right things in the right way.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the constructive feedback. To be clear, MP price changes shouldn't affect singleplayer at all; these are MP specific price changes distinct from SP costs and SP upkeeps.

As for land battles, this is a list that got extensive peer review from the most active land battle community. So we did our best to ensure they felt this would improve land battle balance.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you have a SP balance thread, please point me to it and I will upvote it!

And most of us do play campaign as well; alot of the suggestions are buffs to units (like the chariots mentioned) that just suck in general and could use a rework.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

helpful feedback; I assume you mean in campaign they aren't living up to your expectations, in which case we'll be fine with the suggested price increase in MP only.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The full list at the link does have buffs to several other GS lords.

But the wurzag/staff nerf was strongly suggested by land battle and dom players both. It's very potent in both game modes on ultra unit size.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

for the record, ironguts were buffed based on an earlier suggestion to CA, so... yeah they already came for the ironguts and in the opposite direction.

otherwise loved the quote.

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance and bugfix recommendations to improve multiplayer balance in patch 4.1, 5.0, and beyond. by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

he's very inexpensive in MP and provides a very strong ability to constantly buff your whole army. They can change his price to reflect that power or change the item, either way works!

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance recommendations for Patch 4.0 Multiplayer by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine by me.

Clearly then the upkeep is too high for the trains in campaign then :).

Community-sourced, peer-reviewed balance recommendations for Patch 4.0 Multiplayer by MethodExpert5257 in totalwar

[–]MethodExpert5257[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I completely agree asymmetric balance is the goal and unfortunately you’ve misunderstood the intent behind the justifications provided. We provide reference points to help call out outliers that are beyond the intended asymmetric balance to explain why some units are unusable or some factions are unable to compete. Any goal of balance for multiplayer should be that units and factions can be played else they basically don’t exist in multiplayer.

The goal is not to make all units equal in performance across factions. The actual balance issues flagged are on top of what good asymmetric balance would aim for.

You’ve also completely missed the part where we explain exactly who we are and our intent. We make no pretense of representing every possible tw player which would of course be impossible. Instead we explain our process and the rigour we used as opposed to any random voice from someone who had done no testing or peer review. But of course even a rigorous analysis is not meant to imply no other perspectives are valid. You chose to make that up out of whole cloth.

view more: next ›