Anyone actually play multiplayer?

[777395]

A lot of the 3.0 patches seem mainly relevant for a more multiplayer-focused game (very nice and convenient for CA with their championship coming up that no-one wanted or cares about).

Once again excellent allocation of limited dev resources.
(Co-op campaign don't count).

[[FuFo] Mortucus]

yep and its broken as all ♥♥♥♥ what can i say i spent 70$ buying my self and a mate a copy last night and it took us 2hs just to get a game started
the UI changes are unwanted and the desync was at every turn this is the worst state the games been in for me since i bought it but at least it didnt crash at the end of any of the turns
but i guess i dont count because it was IE

[jonoliveira12]

A handful of people do, but CA is dedicated to balance it for them, at the cost of optimizing the fun out of the SP content that is the core of the game.

[Nox]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

A handful of people do, but CA is dedicated to balance it for them, at the cost of optimizing the fun out of the SP content that is the core of the game.

I swear that if there was no domination mode, we would have gotten a rework alongside Chorfs for some old races instead of numbers.

Not saying the patch is bad, some changes are really good, but the huge focus on mp domination will probably hurt the game in the long run.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by Snake:

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

A handful of people do, but CA is dedicated to balance it for them, at the cost of optimizing the fun out of the SP content that is the core of the game.

I swear that if there was no domination mode, we would have gotten a rework alongside Chorfs for some old races instead of numbers.

Not saying the patch is bad, some changes are really good, but the huge focus on mp domination will probably hurt the game in the long run.

No, that is no guaranteed either.
But right now, for example, Ghorst has been completely mangled by thye new VampCounts nerfs, just because of MP.

[dulany67]

Do not make the mistake of thinking the patches are to benefit MP. They do, but that's just a byproduct. Balancing is based on MP, because they don't have the data to do it any other way.

Let's be honest, no one at CA is playing the game. When they patch something, it's in response to player outcry or numbers supplied by the MP community.

Edit: Slaneesh and VCounts were the top 2 performing faction in MP. The bottom 3 performers are Tzeentch, Nurgle, and Kislev. Check out these factions patch notes.

[777395]

Originally posted by dulany67:

Do not make the mistake of thinking the patches are to benefit MP. They do, but that's just a byproduct. Balancing is based on MP, because they don't have the data to do it any other way.

Let's be honest, no one at CA is playing the game. When they patch something, it's in response to player outcry or numbers supplied by the MP community.

Edit: Slaneesh and VCounts were the top 2 performing faction in MP. The bottom 3 performers are Tzeentch, Nurgle, and Kislev. Check out these factions patch notes.

Yeah good point. Never considered that their data would be from MP.

[Captain Baldy]

Nope, never tried it, never will
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2962975129

[777395]

Originally posted by flange:

Nope, never tried it, never will

Screenshot or you're lying.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by Liminal Boundary:

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

No, that is no guaranteed either.
But right now, for example, Ghorst has been completely mangled by thye new VampCounts nerfs, just because of MP.

Probably just skill issue.
Also while they do nerf units because of multiplayer, they also nerf campaign mechanics (Taurox, Skarbrand) and tweak numbers in campaign too.

Yet many on the forums blame purely campaign balance changes on multiplayer even when they have absolutely nothing to do with it. I've seen those whiny threads.

Didn't Ghorst specifically get hit with nerfs before? He was absurdly overpowered before, and I highly doubt he's bad now.

I can still win with Ghorst, the issue is that he is not fun anymore, and no longer just makes Zombies and Corpse Carts as the true backbone of his armies, and now has to go for the exact same compositions as Kemmler in the lategame, making him entirely pointless as a LL.

This is why I support future DLCs having less LLs. If CA is going to nerf fun to death, then you really do not need copy paste LLs that all end up playing the exact same.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

This is why I support future DLCs having less LLs. If CA is going to nerf fun to death, then you really do not need copy paste LLs that all end up playing the exact same.

I completely agree with this, and this also brings up the problem with using MP for balance- the most engaged MP guys tend to settle on a meta that promotes winning. Ghorst may be the lord to choose in MP and cause VC's win totals to increase, but on SP he is not the most popular vamp lord, and a unique minor campaign gets nerfed and becomes less fun.

They won't just apply this to MP, because they more they make the mechanics different in MP from SP, the less they can use MP to balance factions.

[The Sand Witch]

has there been no changes made to SP? I heard the AI had been tweaked, and they increased the size of RoC map as well. Those are not MP changes. If I was as salty, I'd say CA wasted resources on a game mode that's summed up by full auto resolve.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by The Sand Witch:

has there been no changes made to SP? I heard the AI had been tweaked, and they increased the size of RoC map as well. Those are not MP changes. If I was as salty, I'd say CA wasted resources on a game mode that's summed up by full auto resolve.

There's really no need for you to be salty- no one is really negative about MP. But what you should be salty about is that CA isn't trying to make MP better in the least. They don't care about MP except as a method of balancing factions for SP and advertisement.

When was the last time CA released a new domination map? Where is MP chat so the average new player can set up a game and get into MP? How much did they kick in for the winner's purse in their tournament? $1K?

This is really not about MP vs. SP.

[Quineloe]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by Snake:

I swear that if there was no domination mode, we would have gotten a rework alongside Chorfs for some old races instead of numbers.

Not saying the patch is bad, some changes are really good, but the huge focus on mp domination will probably hurt the game in the long run.

No, that is no guaranteed either.
But right now, for example, Ghorst has been completely mangled by thye new VampCounts nerfs, just because of MP.

Having seen someone use Ghorst to zombie stack defeat Kholek with an army full of Tier 3 and Tier 2 units just camping in a corner he definitely needed some completele mangling.

[Paramite]

I tested but players are a bit too strong for now, last time i got a elite khorne army destroyed by a full cathay peasant force

[Trax]

I like that CA tries now to patch the game (even if its slow). And I do also like the new SP modes... but we rly need to get more love into mp development. this is what im rly looking for. And in gereral more fixes for: unit stats attribute do not count or unclear in several situations, units do not hit, units count as big while they are small vise versa and for me the line of sight is the worst never rly be applicable. they would bring realistic simulation of a fight. but it does not work as expected in so many situations. for me better let it out completly or make it useable now. I would also like better ranked/matchmaking system, anti cheat, balancing.

While others do not like the domination mode I do like it a lot and brought something new/cool to MP that time. But now it feels like neglected.

I'm sure if CA would improve the MP as an competitor to other RTS games the community would grow again.