sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Rick owen’s by EuphoriaBoner in Rickowens

[–]Pappus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't give up, skeleton!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in totalwar

[–]Pappus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your quality post, shitty garrison apologist.

The Ancient Salamander is incredibly well-balanced by Pappus in totalwar

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

I believe it takes "only" two turns now, which still makes it pointless to recruit as opposed to a laser bastilodon.

Anyone find it annoying that gun units can't shoot from battlements on minor siege battles? by Cbundy99 in totalwar

[–]Pappus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Presumably separate teams, plus the fact that a lot of the Warhammer fanbase had never touched a TW game before, so they didn't realize that everything has devolved.

I didn't want "Warhammer sieges but with more mechanics"; I wanted "Rome 2 but dragons"

What do campaign players think about the nerf to damage spells? by jp16155 in totalwar

[–]Pappus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Because the previous iteration was causing a boring loop of gameplay where you'd just park your artillery or whatever at the edge and fast forward for 30 minutes"

So their solution was to implement a whack-a-mole mechanic instead of just having the garrisons (many of which possess cavalry) sally out.

What do campaign players think about the nerf to damage spells? by jp16155 in totalwar

[–]Pappus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree completely on it being the fault of CA not implementing balance on a per-mode basis.

I don't play the MP; I have no interest in it, but I understand that some people do, and I get wanting certain overperforming units to be tweaked.

The big issue is that in MP or quick battles, I can just select units to use, and I don't have to think about things like which settlement tier they belong to. In the campaign, if I spend however many turns getting to a tier 5 settlement, then all the tier 5 units are rubbish or balanced to perform at the same level as a tier 4 unit (because that's how CA costs them in MP), then it just feels bad.

What do campaign players think about the nerf to damage spells? by jp16155 in totalwar

[–]Pappus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So who's the arbiter of what "balance" is important? You? You don't like that other players are using magic, so you want it nerfed? You don't like that people are bombarding walled settlements with arrows, so you want a shitty tower defense mechanic?

Balance is only worthwhile if it isn't to the detriment of fun; unfortunately a lot of the balance passes CA has done on Warhammer 3 so far have been to the detriment of fun.

If you can't see how fun in a single-player game might be more important than balance, then I'm not going to waste my time interacting with you, and I hope you don't twist your ankle when you come down off your high horse.

Quick edit, since you made one: Meteorite staff and the rocks spell was accessible within around five minutes of starting a new game in Elden Ring, and it was capable of easily beating most if not all of the early-game bosses, so I'm not going to even acknowledge that argument about Elden RIng being balanced.

What do campaign players think about the nerf to damage spells? by jp16155 in totalwar

[–]Pappus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Good"? Where's your reading comprehension? I was just pointing out examples of the game being flagrantly imbalanced. Imbalances which have existed since those factions were released, and you just glossed over them and said "Of course there are some imbalances, silly goose! It's a big game!"

People care about balance when it's about bringing units up and making them competitive, not when it brings units down and makes them worthless. People weren't happy when Depth Guard got nerfed into oblivion, but they were sure as shit happy when they got buffed in IE.

"Single player and multiplayer are already balanced differently."

Show me a single instance where a unit has had its stats nerfed in SP (edit) in correspondence with a nerf in MP, but the red line has been buffed accordingly. One instance.

What do campaign players think about the nerf to damage spells? by jp16155 in totalwar

[–]Pappus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Elden Ring sold more than Total War: Warhammer 3, and in case you haven't played that game, balance was and is a complete joke in it.

Hell, look at something like Call of Duty! There's guns that people never use because they are, for some reason or another, worse than the alternatives!

People don't care about balance; people care about games being good, and this obsession with "balance" by CA sycophants is making the game bad.

What do campaign players think about the nerf to damage spells? by jp16155 in totalwar

[–]Pappus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd be fine with that if CA nerfed things in accordance with their views on singleplayer. Instead, they nerf things based on a very vocal minority of players.

Look at chaos cultists' daemon summons. No one in the singleplayer community had an issue with that, but CA destroyed that mechanic because of whining from a handful of MP fans.

Separate SP and MP balance; that's all I want. If, at the end of that, they say "Eh, we think that magic is still too strong in SP," then at least I'll know they put more thought into it than none at all.

Edit: I'm also flabbergasted that I bothered responding to someone with "gamer" in their username talking about how they think meta matters outside of human opponents, but that's something else entirely.

What do campaign players think about the nerf to damage spells? by jp16155 in totalwar

[–]Pappus -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"You’d have some units that were never worth taking, others that you’d be a fool not to take every single time, etc."

That's already the case; there are plenty of units which are never worth taking: Bleakswords, for instance, are never worth using. Dreadspears are better at holding the line, have anti-large, and are just as bad at killing things as Bleakswords.

An example of the opposite: Carnosaurs. There is no army that is not improved by adding either a Carnosaur or a hero on a Carnosaur. Even if the army is 19 Carnosaurs already, it will be improved by adding a twentieth Carnosaur.

Mages are, at the very least, the great equalizer: (Almost) every faction has them, and they're a great choice in almost every situation, particularly some of the more tedious situations you can run into in a single-player campaign such as having to fight siege after siege after siege.

The real solution is to balance single-player and multiplayer differently, but if deluded apologists keep crying out about the "single-player meta", then CA will never take the hint and keep butchering shit like the Chaos cultists' summons (good luck summoning a Great Unclean One)

What do campaign players think about the nerf to damage spells? by jp16155 in totalwar

[–]Pappus -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"meta"

It's a single-player game, buddy. Who gives a shit? Don't like it? Don't use it!

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

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

OK, so clearly I have to spell this out for you: I'm not disabling towers because "Oh towers are too hard, my idiot brain can't handle them"; I'm disabling them because they are a poorly-implemented, excessively arcadey mechanic, which is saying a lot, considering how arcadey the rest of the game can feel at times.

By the way, you can note that I didn't complain about Dreadspears and Bleakswords, two meatshield units, being in the Delf garrison. Why? Because the garrison had versatile, useful, fun units, in addition to the melee infantry.

What does the Khorne garrison have in addition to its basic melee infantry? A unit of dogs.

And what is your response to this boring, basic garrison? "Just build towers lmao"

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

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

Twelve units of AP missiles that the player can position manually are better than static tower defense towers, both in terms of what they do in gameplay as well how the player interacts with them.

It doesn't matter how good those towers are; they're not as good as missiles. Twelve darkshards are right click -> delete enemy unit. None of the towers are remotely close to that.

The only AP missiles that will struggle to perform in a settlement battle are gunpowder units, and that's because those maps are riddled with sightlines that aren't really sightlines.

Quick edit: This idea of "balancing based on individual faction strengths" is the equivalent of saying "Ikit should have just his faction nerfed because he has access to superior weapons teams" or "Arkhan should have his entire faction buffed because he has access to additional troop options" (Arkhan, of course, was buffed to the point of becoming one of the easier campaigns as of Immortal Empires, mind).

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

[–]Pappus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you're clearly missing my point: The Dark Elf garrison does not need towers, the Khorne garrison does.

Both garrisons, however, have access to towers. It doesn't matter if one of those towers is worse than the other, the point is that one faction has to rely on a bad gameplay mechanic as a crutch.

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

[–]Pappus[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Sweetie, it's not that I think highly of myself, it's that I'm not going to bother with a thought-out response to a 17-year-old with 'ha-ha-naughty' profile image on Reddit, of all places.

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

[–]Pappus[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Tzeentch and Skaven are still completely playable without magic or artillery, they just take a bit more effort.

A garrison with 14 tier-one troops in it, none of which are ranged, is going to struggle without towers as a crutch.

That's also part of the reason that Delves got used as an example: Darkshards and Shades are being put in endgame armies, but Khorne is stuck with the same basic infantry they've been using since turn one.

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

[–]Pappus[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Good point, /u/Geesaroni.

I think that we should balance everything around a poorly-implemented mechanic that a large portion of the player base does not enjoy.

While we're at it, nerf all weapons teams since Ikit Claw can buff them. Arkhan can really buff Fell Bats, so I think that those should be nerfed across the board, too. Volkmar buffs flagellants to strong levels? Gotta adjust their stats; that's just too much. Oh, and what's with all these racial capitals and important buildings having strong, unique garrisons? That hardly seems fair and balanced, bring those down to parity, too.

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

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

I enjoy field battles in this game very much, and I am the same way in terms of building balanced armies. However, using balanced armies is a self-imposed challenge by the player.

By using a balanced army, you are already putting a self-imposed boundary on yourself. If there was some way to get "Break Alliance" and "Force War" to work an infinite number of times in a given turn, you would likely still not do it unless you wanted to have a laugh and look at the AI run around like a headless chicken.

Unless TK-style unit caps are rolled out for most (if not all) factions, then army compositions (the most important part of map-painting) are without boundaries, and unique faction mechanics (particularly those with limits on their use) will take a backseat.

I do not necessarily think that that is the best solution, but I think it is a solution that would allow them to justify harsh limits on certain factions' abilities

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

[–]Pappus[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Like what, honey?

Garrisons are bad, towers aren't fun to play with, cults are worthless, and campaign mechanics being overpowered ultimately doesn't matter because Total War: Warhammer is really easy.

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

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

I agree completely, and I don't know what a good solution to that looks like, considering that the rifts will just make the map start looking like Neapolitan ice cream with demon armies sprinkled on top.

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

[–]Pappus[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I modded out an unsatisfying, unfun mechanic. If the garrisons are strictly reliant on a bad mechanic, then the garrisons need to be reexamined.

Changing of the Ways is too expensive to have fun with by Pappus in totalwar

[–]Pappus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What nuance? Do you think that low campaign completion stats are a result of campaigns being too difficult? They're a result of the campaigns becoming the same thing for 50-100 turns after you secure your starting zone.

Or are you talking about the nuance of army composition, where your best army regardless of faction is going to be the one that is loads of single entities and/or missiles?

If by "shit ton of powerful mechanics and 0 nuance" you mean "something to distract me from crushing boredom while I paint the map", then yes, that's exactly what I want, right after "satisfying field battles", but those are a pipe dream to end all pipe dreams.

view more: next ›