Global Nerf to "Ranged"?

[omar_uav]

it seems all ranged troops,siege weapons,mounted ranged, war machines, magic chariot.

do have lower ROF than WH2, from a range of 1-3 seconds.

which makes an issue for ranged focus faction, while buff faction that do not yield ranged firepower.

is there a real reason for the nerf?

[Verchial]

Good. We Warriors of Chaos and Beastmen players will toast to that.

:raise the skull goblet:

[Stromko]

It really feels like ranged attacks are the most overpowered they have ever been. Armor and shields have been nerfed so hard the only difference between Dwarf Slayers and Ironbreakers is the Ironbreakers will break and flee after taking a few arrow barrages while the Slayers will try to tank it with just their beards and die in same number of barrages due to their slightly more spread out formation.

[stormleo77]

Single handedly the best improvement to combat in wh3.

Ofc still plenty of people that get bewildered that they just cant spam archers but actually need to make an attempt to protect them otherwise they get run over and butchered apparently failing to kill armored and shield cavalry with basic archers before getting mowed into the ground.

[Isaac]

Stromko a écrit :

It really feels like ranged attacks are the most overpowered they have ever been. Armor and shields have been nerfed so hard the only difference between Dwarf Slayers and Ironbreakers is the Ironbreakers will break and flee after taking a few arrow barrages while the Slayers will try to tank it with just their beards and die in same number of barrages due to their slightly more spread out formation.

what drugs did you take? armor and shield have not been nerfed, ranged units have been nerfed.

[omar_uav]

OTSEchoZenLogos a écrit :

Did you notice the lower rate of fire by actual testing, or by looking at the tooltip?

Because the WH2 tooltips often weren't accurate in this regard. That was my main point.

Though I have no doubt they'll need to make some more balance changes, I haven't had any particular issue with ranged units so far.

first i tried using the units, was soo happy karl franz starts with a mortar, and got his crossbow replaced with a 2nd handgunners, noticed that ranged firepower is not decent as before, switched to Markus Wulfhart, still felt the same thing, then went back to WH2, felt things are better , decided to compare, noticed missile strength is different, which its because ROF is reduced.

Defmonkey a écrit :

Yes because it completely dominated and became the optimal way to play. Just became a cheese strategy.

yes to some factions, as most said , the vermins , they did have a large arsenal of ranged firepower, poison mortar, long range rifles, machine guns with suppression and good damage.

[IonizedMercury]

omar_uav a écrit :

yes to some factions, as most said , the vermins , they did have a large arsenal of ranged firepower, poison mortar, long range rifles, machine guns with suppression and good damage.

And they were (and actually still are) overpowered as hell. As a Skaven main this hurts me because playing them like Skaven is marginalized in favor of playing them like the Empire or Dwarfs.

Ranged units need to be nerfed further still.

If you want shooty Warhammer, play a 40k game.

[omar_uav]

PMarricks a écrit :

omar_uav a écrit :

yes to some factions, as most said , the vermins , they did have a large arsenal of ranged firepower, poison mortar, long range rifles, machine guns with suppression and good damage.

And they were (and actually still are) overpowered as hell. As a Skaven main this hurts me because playing them like Skaven is marginalized in favor of playing them like the Empire or Dwarfs.

Ranged units need to be nerfed further still.

If you want shooty Warhammer, play a 40k game.

make me a 40k total war then please.

but it seems you are totally fine with WH2, but suddenly hate on ranged.


just to let you know even in 40K melee is used heavily.

[Jukelo]

Crockets a écrit :

Obviously CA is pushing towards making more melee or balanced armies. This is pretty apparent by the fact they significantly reduced melee penalties at v.h battle difficulty to make melee viable. In TW2 unless it is your chosen fighting vs enemies clanrats 1 vs 1 your melee will almost always rout instantly due to heavy AI buffs.
So you never recruited melee in TW2 on higher difficulties and ran 18 sisters doomstacks because ranged did'nt suffer from melee nerfs. Instead players used clever tricks like summons or checkerboard formations to distract enemy melee and then melt them with arrows.
I for one welcome this change. After running 90% ranged i welcome this new change as melee does'nt seem completely useless anymore.

Please don't just parrot Legend's talking points.
Melee was always viable in VH, my armies in that game are reliably at least half melee, because I find it more fun than ranged spam. My last Imrik campaign I used no range units beyond the very early game, I focused on white lions, swordmasters and dragon princes for the sake of it.
Yes, ranged units are too strong, but against the AI you could always do just about anything even in VH.

[Lady Aelora]

Zephyx a écrit :

I really enjoy ranged focused army compositions (I love total war empire/napoleon for this reason).

I am NOT pleased with the ranged nerf and think it should be reverted. If you want to further balance ranged units, then make them more squishy in Melee. Nerfing their very purpose (ranged DPS) was a bad call.

Wholeheartedly agree!

[IonizedMercury]

omar_uav a écrit :

PMarricks a écrit :

And they were (and actually still are) overpowered as hell. As a Skaven main this hurts me because playing them like Skaven is marginalized in favor of playing them like the Empire or Dwarfs.

Ranged units need to be nerfed further still.

If you want shooty Warhammer, play a 40k game.

make me a 40k total war then please.

but it seems you are totally fine with WH2, but suddenly hate on ranged. :happy_creep:


just to let you know even in 40K melee is used heavily.

Nope, I always hated the ranged meta in WH2. I will fight tooth and nail to see it obliterated.

Jukelo a écrit :

Crockets a écrit :

Obviously CA is pushing towards making more melee or balanced armies. This is pretty apparent by the fact they significantly reduced melee penalties at v.h battle difficulty to make melee viable. In TW2 unless it is your chosen fighting vs enemies clanrats 1 vs 1 your melee will almost always rout instantly due to heavy AI buffs.
So you never recruited melee in TW2 on higher difficulties and ran 18 sisters doomstacks because ranged did'nt suffer from melee nerfs. Instead players used clever tricks like summons or checkerboard formations to distract enemy melee and then melt them with arrows.
I for one welcome this change. After running 90% ranged i welcome this new change as melee does'nt seem completely useless anymore.

Please don't just parrot Legend's talking points.
Melee was always viable in VH, my armies in that game are reliably at least half melee, because I find it more fun than ranged spam. My last Imrik campaign I used no range units beyond the very early game, I focused on white lions, swordmasters and dragon princes for the sake of it.
Yes, ranged units are too strong, but against the AI you could always do just about anything even in VH.

That's the usual apologist nonsense.

It's irrelevant whether melee was "viabl" in WH2, it was clearly inferior to just shooting the enemy and therefore no reason existed to not go ranged-heavy for the factions that could do so. The AI was also terrible at dealing with the ranged meta, so melee was only "viable" in the sense that the AI let you get away with it. MP showed the truth where ranged units where the centerpieces and MvPs of nearly all matches and controlled the entire flow of it. Melee was reduced to just providing mobile fences and that even was only because MP has unit caps.

[Lady MacBeth]

PMarricks a écrit :

omar_uav a écrit :

make me a 40k total war then please.

but it seems you are totally fine with WH2, but suddenly hate on ranged. :happy_creep:


just to let you know even in 40K melee is used heavily.

Nope, I always hated the ranged meta in WH2. I will fight tooth and nail to see it obliterated.

Jukelo a écrit :

Please don't just parrot Legend's talking points.
Melee was always viable in VH, my armies in that game are reliably at least half melee, because I find it more fun than ranged spam. My last Imrik campaign I used no range units beyond the very early game, I focused on white lions, swordmasters and dragon princes for the sake of it.
Yes, ranged units are too strong, but against the AI you could always do just about anything even in VH.

That's the usual apologist nonsense.

It's irrelevant whether melee was "viabl" in WH2, it was clearly inferior to just shooting the enemy and therefore no reason existed to not go ranged-heavy for the factions that could do so. The AI was also terrible at dealing with the ranged meta, so melee was only "viable" in the sense that the AI let you get away with it. MP showed the truth where ranged units where the centerpieces and MvPs of nearly all matches and controlled the entire flow of it. Melee was reduced to just providing mobile fences and that even was only because MP has unit caps.

In reality every since the first bow and arrow was made. It has always been tactically better to have ranged fire power. Eventually giving way to gunpowder weaponry of course.

[omar_uav]

PMarricks a écrit :

Nope, I always hated the ranged meta in WH2. I will fight tooth and nail to see it obliterated.

so rather than making a game that everyone can enjoy,melee, ranged with tactical gameplay, which strategy is important , we going somewhere else.

we are going to settle grudges or play the dwarfs?

[Jukelo]

PMarricks a écrit :

That's the usual apologist nonsense.

It's irrelevant whether melee was "viabl" in WH2

It may be irrelevant to the point you're making, but it wasn't irrelevant to the post I was quoting, so please don't @ me then call me out for "apologist nonsense" when you're leaving half the context out. I'm not even disagreeing with the larger point of ranged being too good FCS.

[Isaac]

omar_uav a écrit :

PMarricks a écrit :

Nope, I always hated the ranged meta in WH2. I will fight tooth and nail to see it obliterated.

so rather than making a game that everyone can enjoy,melee, ranged with tactical gameplay, which strategy is important , we going somewhere else.

we are going to settle grudges or play the dwarfs?

well, kinda? I mean, making a whole army with only bowmen was asking for a disaster, you still needed people who hold the line and stuff. also, one thing that the total war games never show, is that making this huge amount of arrows was not that cheap. yes, a sword is more expensive than a few arrows, but you can keep the sword after a fight, most arrows are useless after the first shot.

[Falaris]

What CA actually said:

Foreword a écrit :

We’ve adjusted reload-time reductions for ranged units so they’re easier to understand and don’t scale to the point where stacked reload-reduction buffs make ranged units overperform outrageously

RELOAD TIME CALCULATION a écrit :

DEV NOTE:

Previously, all ranged units had an innate (hidden) reload time reduction baked into their base stats ranging (roughly) between -7% and -15%. This variance led to several issues: some as simple as base reload times appearing as decimal values in the UI (rather than nice, round numbers) to complex problems with how additional reload time reductions were calculated, how stacking reload-reduction effects scale under different circumstances (often scaling DPS exponentially), and how other gameplay systems play off the value.

To address these issues, we’re removing the innate reductions on all units except the Regiments of Renown—which will still see reductions, though we want to maintain their “veterancy” status to some extent. This will result in a slight reduction to the DPS of ranged units across the board, though the exact impact will depend heavily on context; generally speaking, it will be smallest on units without any Campaign buffs, and most noticeable in situations where multiple reload-time reductions have been stacked on a unit.

Removed the innate reload time reductions from all non-Regiment of Renown units.
Reduced the innate reload time reduction for Regiment of Renown units from -30% to -18%.
Standardised the effect of rank on reload time; Rank 9 should now always equate to a -18% reduction in reload time
DEV NOTE:

In addition to the above change, we’ve also updated the UI to reflect the actual damage output of units more accurately. A unit cannot fire faster than its reload animation—which, in most cases, lasts roughly 4 seconds—but the UI was not taking this into account. This means that when multiple reload-time reduction effects were stacked, the UI would display higher damage values than were being dealt.

Altered the minimum reload time value displayed in the UI from 2 to 4 seconds. (Note that this is purely a display change and will have no impact on actual reload times.)

So, this is a threefold complex:
1: Reload time is displayed differently, which looks higher, but reflects reality more and is no actual change.
2: Reload time STACKING works differently and IS nerfed. This is like when you have 6 warlock engineers to give your Ratling Gunners 280 range and 1500+ damage.
3: An innate reload time reduction - which wasn't shown and not all units had - is removed/adjusted and shunted into level bonus. Exact effect vary depending on other factors, but for many units it is a (small) nerf.

Or in other words, it's complicated, it's mostly a UI change, and the main 'nerf' is to stacking bonuses, not to ranged overall.

So, yeah, Legend and cheeselords are the most affected, that's why he complains about it. That doesn't make it an universal big nerf.