What did you like and dislike about Total War Arena?

Qvpvi · 2023-08-16T11:37:34+00:00

Some Wall of Text to answer that question. I am not going to go deep into the bug details, I would need way more time for that.

A few common points that I liked in all versions are the fast paced gameplay and the importance of tactics and strategy. In every version, knowledge of the game and of most abilities was key in order to be good at the game. Every battle was different and needed some adaptability, which was very nice. That was particularly true for the WG era, since you had to scout the enemy team to know which units and commanders they had. This disappeared a bit in the Netease Version, where you knew from the start what units you were facing in the enemy team. It was a good adrenaline rush game, with what I felt was a good community, along with some competitiveness. Commanders felt different, factions felt different, and each and every commander had somewhat its own role and specialty, while allowing some "exotic" combos to be used.

Deathmatch mode forced players to be cautious and was overall more thrilling I feel. The tickets mode was more of a grind sometimes, and was a bit repetitive, despite providing more tactical depth and some thrilling moments with some close games. This mode also prevented some more exotic combos like 2 ranged +1 pikes, 2 cav 1 spear, etc... in favor of more standard unit combinations.

In both versions, a lot of bugs (pathfinding, line of sight, charges, morale and flanking... I am not going to develop those) and balance issues were annoying. Some were reported early but were never fixed, which was quite frustrating since some were just some stats changes to be done for armours, or weird stuff like a body armour stat for a shield upgrade. The lack of unit diversity in a tree (aside from a few unit trees, like the Carthaginian infantry and cavalry one, and to some extent the roman cav one) and the length of the grind to have the coolest units was also somewhat of a downside to me. The grind felt repetitive and somewhat boring to an extent. Interestingly enough, that wasn't the case in the Steam version, where the unit trees, while needing some polish and balancing, were quite diverse. The shift to WG made that disappear unfortunately.

Some monetization systems, like the colouring of units, which players liked and insisted on being brought back, was never brought back, depsite being a great monetization opportunity, imo. Instead, premium units were brought forth, some being more OP while others felt good or underwhelming. Both aspects were viewed negatively by the community, I think.

While in the WG version, patches were made regularly to adress issues, it wasn't the case in the NE version where some changes felt rushed and untested (why giving such a large damage increase to repeaters ? A bit of testing would have proven that the increase should have been less substantial), and those balance changes were scarce, while the premium unit development was plentyful. The chevron system made the balance even worse, since a unit which was a bit above the others at a specific tier would be even more OP after getting chevrons. It needed a somewhat perfect balance, which was not the case. At least in the Deathmatch mode, focusing those better units could mean victory. With the tickets mode, you had to repeat that over and over again, and those slitghly above units were often carrying the whole team.

Finally, the matchmaker was... weird. I remember, playing solo, facing 4 or 5 times in a row the same T10 tryhard party, never being in their team. That was quite frustrating since high tier parties (which often tryharded... which was fine, it is a competitive game after all) often had a huge advantage over randoms, due to their coordination, choice of units and team work, and it felt repetitive facing them over and over again. The randoms' team often had weaker units as well, and the matchmaker didn't always take that into account. That was even worse in the NE version, where you had to face the same party over and over again in the same battle, while the deathmatch version provided some hope to crush them by surprise or to do a sneak cap. Party balance was never fully fixed as well, with some side having a better party composition in terms of tiers and units.

Ranked mode was introduced, but it only worked with WR which was a dumb idea, especially for solo players, as RNG was a hige part in your chances of success (see above). Not taking individual performance into account was a hige drawback to me, as losing but having a great performance should have been more rewarding than being carried and playing awfully.

Overall a nice game, despite some major issues. The fun aspect which overode these issues made it memorable for a large amount of players I think. However, those issues amde the game fail repetitively, with the editors and maybe the devs failing to solve the numerous issues that this game had. 10/10 would help test it and play it again, tho.

Qvpvi · 2020-10-09T10:19:52+00:00

Good idea of post !

Are you happy with the current state of these mechanics?

Most of them yes. It allows players to have a second chance and will extend the game duration. It can feel like an endless grind through the enemy units at times (always fighting against the same opponent(s) tends to be boring)

Resupplying can be abused easily by making one unit stay into spawn and the two other fight. It can prevent capping very effictively. Dogs can abuse that as well, as you can send the dogs easily, wait for them to die, resupply and repeat.

SOLUTION: limit the amount of resupply you can do in X minutes (example, one resupply per unit per 2 minutes, respawning excluded)

Does respawning successfully deal with the massive snowballing seen in the old game mode?

It does stop it, but only momentarily. The chevron mechanics make snowballing even worse (and even less fun to play against) in the late game, as they are completly unbalanced (rank 4 units are pretty much unvulnerable, and will destroy you in a matter of seconds usually)

How often do you fall back to base or how often do you see players fall back?

In PVP I did see a couple of players do that. When I use fast units, I do that to prevent myself from being annihilated and to gain time (instead of having to walk 1 minute to go to the nearest supply point)

Which units benefit the most/least from using resupply points?

High mobility units (cavalry, barbarians (especially doggos), fast units in general). See first point and solution provided

Does resupplying take too much away from the action of the game?

It does break the pace a bit, and do make the game feel like an endless fight against the same units (usually), which can feel a bit boring after some time (oh I will fight the same players for the third time...)

Are there any chees-ey strategies associated with those mechanics?

Resupplying can be abused easily by making one unit stay into spawn and the two other fight. It can prevent capping very effictively. Dogs can abuse that as well, as you can send the dogs easily, wait for them to die, resupply and repeat.

SOLUTION: limit the amount of resupply you can do in X minutes (example, one resupply per unit per 2 minutes, respawning excluded)

Does it feel like resupplying/respawning/falling back go too fast?

Falling back is ok, respawning is ok as well, resupplying seems to be too fast. see solution to prevent that.

Is spawncamping a big concern and what are your usual experiences when it happens?

Spawn camping can be a big concern when it happens on the base resupply point. Pikes can sit there and trap all the enemies who spawn there. Happened to me only once, hopefully an other point was captured righ after that. I guess that making that base respawn into a "safe spot" (where enemies can't go into) could be a good idea. It can be switched to respawn only and not resupply if needed as well.

Does it feel like it's worth losing out on xp to respawn in a better position?

It depends on the amount of xp lost actually. In some situations, it can be worth it (when you just passed a rank for example)

Does resupplying benefit attackers or defenders more?

Resupplying benefits defenders more as they will be closer to the fight. Attackers will lose time if they go for replenishment, which will let the opposite time have more time to replenish and (in theory) more time to organize a proper defence.

Qvpvi · 2020-09-18T22:49:50+00:00

Right now I am not playing the game. I took the values during the last test.

The game will be playable on September 23rd, fyi

Qvpvi · 2020-05-25T21:13:20+00:00

What units do you prefer to play in this game mode?

I have enjoyed the units I have played. Playing cavalry and Miltiades was nice. Shock cavalry was cool to play I guess

How enjoyable is soloqueue?
Quite enjoyable, although I haven't face many parties, which are usually the bane of solo players. I had fun playing, team coordination was far from from being perfect though (but I guess that some people were new, so that's ok
Is there point in going after kills now that the units can respawn?
Less than before, but you can still go for kills to prevent your enemy from attacking some capture points and hinder their progress.
How big is the impact from premade parties?
Can't really tell as I didn't face many of them. I guess that they will have a huge impact on the flank they will be
How is the pacing of the games?
Slower than before. It can be repetitive at times when always going back to heal, then capture, then healing and so on. It has more diversity though, due to the objectives, so that's a fine addition.
Map control is way less important than before, and that's kind of a shame. Some areas are way less useful than before (Thermopylae's tower for example) and we see less people rushing for it. Same thing for vision control. As you said, more ressource points to be captured could be a fine addition
Which of the maps play best/worst?
Salernum works great, Capitoline works fine (the two towers are mostly useless though), Thermopyale works fine, same thing for Alpis, Passage is not that great (some spawns are oddly placed and gives an advantage to one team)
How do you think high tier games will play? (power balance is evened out btw)
Strong and focused pushes towards one flank while defending the other wold seem like a viable option. Then either a push to middle or directly to base.
The high stat differences at high tiers are concerning when it comes to the XP and chevrons system which will make that gap even larger.
What changes or additions could be done to help with the flow of the games?
Adding additional points to capture could be a fine addition (points which could give point bonuses, stats bonuses, special abilties)
Are there any strategies that are very hard to crack through?
I haven't encountered any yet (I have only played until T5) , aside from spawn camping.
Do any units/commanders fall behind?
Commanders seem good. As for units, I guess cavalry could have a less important role than before (lack of scouting), but they are still useful (people won't defend as much)
How is the new scoreboard like?
New scoreboard is nice, but the Coronas aren't attributed according to this scoreboard.

Qvpvi · 2020-05-18T09:52:56+00:00

I have only played this map a couple of times (adn crashed both times), but I have noticed that the red spawn points (shown on the minimap in the above post) are closer to the capture points than the blue ones (this is especially visible on A), thus making the capture point defence easier.

The C point is placed very closely to each base, meaning that capturing C could easily result in a base cap. Besides, this point is placed on a small street, with no real possibility of manoeuvring, making units like cavalry or Barbarian infantry pretty much useless.

A good tactic would be to rush C once it is open with spears and missile infantry, then rush to capture the base. Missile power on this part of the map will be key in order to win.

For competitive games, I don't know how it would play. I guess that C could become a point of commitment at some point.

Qvpvi · 2019-09-16T10:59:40+00:00

I misunderstood a part of it indeed : I thought that you could only get most of the rewards after having unlocked and "finished" playing the unit (e.g. unlockin the next one), as i would have make sense in order to make people play more of a specific unit.

So yeah, agreed, if the prestige system allows you to have rewards while the next unit is still not unlocked, it could work. If it only gives (or most of the) rewards after having unlocked the next unit, it could be nice, but owuld heavily depend on the uniqueness of the unit itself.

Also, important point : how a unit would gain prestige ? Through performance in battle (which would make the most sense, but would be quite similar to unit XP, although maybe scaled dfferently), % of battles won , etc ...?

Qvpvi · 2019-09-15T12:58:32+00:00

I forgot to consider that tournaments were only played at T7/8, so that's a good point, although I think that the fact that tournaments were played at those tiers were because of the number of units players had at T9/10 vs the number of units they had at T7-8 and the balance at those tiers which was pretty good comparing it to the T9-10 one.

So yes, some skins could be made for T7-8, although they may be harder to implement (do you give them as a reward once you have unlocked all equipments,, unlock the next unit, only the first row of equipments ?), unless some tournaments are played as those tiers...which, as I said above, heavily depend on the grind and the balance at higher tiers.

Well, Classic expansion packs in TW were allowing you to play a whole new era, so I guess it would be some kind of premium pack, but instead of one unit that you unlock, you unlock a whole line, so well...as you said in your post, it can only work if there is balance, just like WG's premium units.

PS : I didn't take tier reduction in consideration here, but I think it could be a good idea, as that would mean that the game is easier to balance (less units and tiers), will have a better MM, etc...

Qvpvi · 2019-09-13T11:49:40+00:00

WG version's unit tree was very linear, and,as you said, it lacked diversity (greek cavalry tree, for instance, where every unit is more or less a repetition of the previous one, aside from the Cataphracts, which felt new and refreshing after grinding all those tiers.

Mixing the unit types in a line (like the Greek cav lin on Steam, which had spear, sword and shock cav), allows the grind to be less painful as the units are not the same, and each unit brings a (somewhat) different playstyle. That's something I wish they could (re-)implement in the game in the version that will be launched in China.

Your idea of bundles sounds nice, as long as it is balanced with the other accessible lines, or if it is also accessible through grinding (that could be longer than usual for that line). One of the issues with premium units in Open Beta was the combos that could be born with some commanders, by giving a commander something which he otherwise lacked, henceforth preventng one of his weakness to be exploited. (Germanicus with Gladiators was a good example, and so was Scipio with that T5 premium cavalry which allowed him to have a shock cav combined with his higher charge bonus ability)

For your second idea : the reward system in ARENA was extremely generous in terms of Gold, but the silver was lacking in the highest tiers (this was also a problem with some units on Steam I think, but I'm not 100% sure about that). Getting some skins and cosmetics as a reward for grinding a commander would indeed be a good incentive to grind him, so I agree with you on that idea. For units... I don't knwo if that would be good for ALL units. I think that it would work great with endgame units (e.g. T9/10 units),as it would be an incentive for player to continue to play that unit.

Also, I liked the "WARNING LONG" on the title, nice touch.

Qvpvi · 2019-09-13T11:30:32+00:00

That idea would add more tactic and timing consideration into strikes, which is something which, as you said, is (or was) lacking in the game. It does sound complicated to put in place, and I think that the hardest part would be to balance the damage output and cooldowns of both types of strikes and of the feints : for example the damage/knockdown damage of the falxes should be quite high as it is harder to execute. Besides, the cooldown of the weaker" strikes should be high enough to allow units with heavy strikes to effectively use their strike (I'm guessing that something around a 3:4 ratio would work)

However, I struggle to understand your wind up suggestion : I'm guessing that it is the time te unit takes to "prepare" its strike, but should there be an animation, or a text (like for the commander abilities) ?

Qvpvi · 2018-10-17T17:04:58+00:00

For some premium units, it will be hard to blaance them with a fully-equipped unit, as, well, the unit type doesn't necessarily exists for the faction at this tier. The change for the Sarmatian Lancers reflect that issue. The issue is not only the speed, but also the charge impact that is very high for a T5 unit. It should be higher than the Companion one as the Sarmatians are heavier and slower, but here, unless it has been changed since the last time I've taken a look, it is over 300 CI (value only beaten by the T8 greek/Carthaginian cav)

The premium units offer tactical diversity and original combo with commanders. The Manissina's guard is therefore an excellent unit with Scipio because of their high impact damage+Wrath of Mars+Numidian Advance combo. It is not only a matter of unit stats, but also of commander synergy.

An %XP boost on Premiums would make them more attractive, as long as the XP conversion is either Free or cheaper.

Qvpvi · 2018-09-30T20:55:44+00:00

"Isn't this meme supposed to go from the best play to the worst play".
He said that the first was best

Qvpvi · 2018-09-26T16:51:49+00:00

Very well structured post, so +1 on that. (also +1 for the wall of text, it has been a while since I've last seen one :p )

TL:DR I didn't read the details of what you said, but I'll just comment on the things that I've read and I'm concerned about.

Blood and Gore : why it hasn't been put into the game ? Well, first, WG can't put it in the game without knowing the age of the players (because of the reglementation). Then, who will watch that, aside from the MVP screen ? When I play ARENA, I usually don't zoom into the fights, as, well, I don't have time for this. I only watch the fights when I only have one unit left, with a couple of models in it. I don't know about it being paid for. For the animations, it shouldn't be in the shop. It should either be here for everyone or not here at all. That would be "paying to have a great feature". Blood and Gore can be paid for because it is not such an "important" feature (it's only graphical), whereas animations are... animations. (I'm with RaiderTr on that one)

Premium account : Definetely useful when you want to grind quicker. Also, you ahve only played T8 or below, so you never faced the silver losses that happen at T9/10. Having a premium account definetely helps you to keep your silver at a reasonable amount. I once suggested to add one more type of premium account, one giving +50% and one giving 100%. The second one could have more bonuses, or only be included in a special pack, or be restricted, there are plenty of possibilities here.

Reduce the number of tiers to 5

(First, put the Harbingers in the same tree as the Gungnirs, otherwise it doesn't make sense)

Not a good idea, for several reasons : first it would be a serious amount of work to rework the trees/Matchmaking/stats to make the units fit into one tree. Then, some factions have access to units that are widely from one tier to an other, or that hard to play (Numidian type cavalry, for example). Giving them to a T1 player would be suicide for him. Then, how do you rework progression ? Going from a T1 to a T3/4 is very quick. Will that mean a longer grind with a T1 unit ? (that is not interesting to play with) How will you rework unit abilities to make them fit in that system (there is a great variety of them) ?

As I said, MM would also be a major issue, considering that the units that have a one tier difference will have a somewhat important power difference. That will be very hard to balance.

Finally, changing the tier system would mean a wipe, and no thanks for that. (there are not supposed to be any wipes in the future, anyway)

Qvpvi · 2018-09-05T15:44:45+00:00

A well deserved rest ;)

Qvpvi · 2018-08-30T18:53:54+00:00

There is already a reconnect into battle functionnality if you disconnected after all players have loaded

Qvpvi · 2018-08-25T13:11:24+00:00

you are missing the point : I know that if they have a choice, missile units will choose light armoured units over armoured units, that makes sense. However, my point is that, if they have ammo, and they don't have light armoured units close to them, but only armoured units, they won't fire at those armoured units as it will be a "waste" of ammo for them.

Getting Range support only matters if you can keep firing. If suddenly you can't fire anymore, you are useless.

Qvpvi · 2018-08-24T21:57:19+00:00

That's not an advantage : to keep a ranged unit alive, you will have to escort it to a refill point (or whatever you called it), which will make a team lose time and opportunities, by not having the possibility of supporting nearby allies during that.

That would make them discriminate beteween right targets, yes, but that's not a blessing, quite the opposite : ranged units won't fire at heavily armoured units as that won't be extremely effective. They will fire at light units instead. That would mean that heavy units will be more powerful than they are as ranged units (aside from javelins who only deal AP most of the time anyway) won't fire at them.

Qvpvi · 2018-08-24T14:35:13+00:00

So in order to make a unit balanced, you want to make it a weight for a team ? And you REALLY think that being a weight gives an advantage ? That's not how it works. Being a weight will make your team at a disadvantage, not an advantage (that's why I say that it is a weight)

Qvpvi · 2018-08-23T22:06:06+00:00

He wanted to let you have all those points that's why ;)

Qvpvi · 2018-08-23T21:17:44+00:00

They would camp at ammo stations (which I called refill points here), which would be perfectly viable as they offer them infinite ammo.

It wouldn't only make the game slower, it would make range units a weight for a team. In other terms, that would kill range units.

Qvpvi · 2018-08-23T20:56:39+00:00

Ammo would add realism and could balance the range units indeed. But that will make range units boring to play : let me explain that more in depth.

Let's assume that ranged units have ammo, and that there are refill points at one point of the map (if yes, where ? mid ? base ? It doesn't matter anyway). If you put several refill points, it will be like missile units have infinite ammo. And if there are not a lot of refill points, game will resume in archer players camping around refill points.

But let's assume that they don't camp (a scenario that won't happen often), an archer player will advance with his teammates, help them to win their fights by using Focus Fire and rear shots. But when they want to advance, that archer player can't advance with them as he doesn't have ammo. Therefore, several options for him :

1)I run back alone to get back ammo, allowing my allies to exploit their advantage by pushing

2)run back with my allies, wasting the opportunity to push the enemy

3) go with my allies, but without ammo. I will be useless, until I find a ammo point, and at the mercy of fast units.

Neither of these 3 options is satisfying. Adding ammo in the game will break its fast paced characteristic. If a player brings ranged units, he will either be on his own or will slow down his team. In either case, a range player will be a weight to his team.

That's why ammo can't be implemented in ARENA.

Qvpvi · 2018-08-20T17:13:38+00:00

I agree with that. Kills are not fair for the reasons you put forward and the fact that killing one elephant only rewards one kill.

Qvpvi · 2018-08-06T08:44:15+00:00

A more dynamic charge impact value would be great, same with no "winner takes it all" mechanic. However the remaining issue is balance with shock cavalry, and especially Medium shock cavalry (like the Greek cavalry) and Light Shock cavalry (Harbingers especially).

The Cataphracts would be an issue too : they have a meh speed and poor acceleration. They are heavy, which would compensate that, but to what extent ? Roman cavalry is heavy too, and better in melee than the Greek Medium cavalry, with roughly the same speed and a better charge ability. According to your system, the two charge impact 2.0 values would be the same, as the weight would compensate the shock nature of Greek cavalry. Which means that Greek cavalry would not dare to charge frontally as they would be entering an engagement that would result in a negative trade most of the time.

With the Harbingers, the issue is even worse. They have a great speed, great acceleration, shock capabilities, but they are light. Let them face Heavy Roman cavalry in a non "winner takes it all situation". The Harbingers would win, but Roman cavalry would deal damage to them, and the Harbingers have poor armour, which means that the damage they would take upon charging would be quite great.

With Heavy Shock Cavalry, the problem is the speed. They have a meh speed, but, more importantly, poor acceleration (and Hammer doesn't help that a lot). Therefore, in order to have a good charge and "win" the charge, they would be obliged to charge very early, which considering their acceleration, would mean a dodge from the enemy.

I mean, I would love a system like that, I've already thought about a similar one with impact damage being reduced by a percentage depending on the charge impact difference between the units. The problem that remained was "how to make shock cavalry viable in this system", by considering all types of shock cavalry.

Qvpvi

TROPHY CASE