Conquest ISNT Replacing Land Battles...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- #warhammer #totalwar #multiplayer #landbattle #dlc #rts #thronesofdecay
Discord: / discord
Board Game: www.puppetmast...
Patreon: / humanboy
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @humanboyyesyes
The main appeal I can see of conquest (which is also most likely the reason CA put it as the main quickplay mode) is that you don't need a dozen rules to keep it fair. If one team is running, or hiding in the corner, or just kiting around all game, you don't need to put rules saying "No you have to always be attacking"
Yep, it's an effective catch-all (catch-most?) for non-tournament environments. Can't wait to see an overcast Vangheist's Revenge on some poor blobber though.
That's why CA needs to raise the ticket requirement and/or make contesting the point not grant any tickets in the meantime. The capture point should be a fail-safe, not the victory condition.
Tournament land battles will never go away because there is a dedicated community with good land battle etiquette. But as someone brand new to multiplayer, I won't do land battles on ladder ever again.
I like the idea of conquest for quick matches against randoms because it forces the players to actually fight, gives an incentive to attack each other, it kills the corner camping and forest hiding and other degenerate play styles. Although for tournament play where there are rules to hold players in check the freedom and variety that standard land battles bring are much more fun and entertaining
Currently conquest on QB actually encourages corner camping. The maps are not large enough to keep the point out of the range of artillery positioned at the white line.
Agreed. Conquest is an effective anti-degeneracy tool, but it's also blunt in that it hits legitimate tactics as well. Detailed gentleman's rules + active enforcement is the only way to combat lame gameplay without also throwing out reasonable kiting and timing plays.
How dare you tell me to be calm! I want to be irrationally outraged with something that other people are enjoying!
Just have to add that you can customize the amount of tickets you want in a lobby game of conquest, so for tournies you can add or subtract time if you feel its not enough/too much 🤷♂️
I do hope CA puts back in contestation of the point though, which will halt the timer when two units of each army are fighting on the point
I don’t know who sends you such extreme comments. The current approach of conquest is not quite right and I agree nothing has to replace anything, but I think almost everyone can see clear ways to make conquest a bit better. Contestation pausing the timer, a longer initial lockout, a bit more tickets. Our mod had these features, was extensively tested and did not produce blobs; it was very similar to land battles. Ca should definitely improve this mode regardless of whether you think it’s a replacement or just another option. Nobody wants blobs but they’re not far off.
Perhaps point capture should balance around the middle instead of starting over from 0%? In other words, you capture it at 51% strength but lose it if the other player brings in enough capture weight to bring you down to 49%. This would make it less "winner takes all" and more "total time spent * capture weight".
@@emultra759 I'm not sure I fully understand what you have in mind there. I do tend to think unlike domination the focus really shouldn't be on capture weight or how many units you pile on to a spot. If there's a fight over the spot and nobody gets tickets 'til its resolved that would make sense to me. Capturing is just what you do when you have clear control of the center.
@@eumaies Once someone has captured a point, the other player needs to fill the meter all the way from 0%, right? That's why it's such a big deal when someone barely manages to capture or hold a point in Domination. Well, what if the meter didn't reset and simply switched to whoever is above 50%? You wouldn't be down massively in tickets for barely missing a capture/failing to hold. Instead you could just enter another unit and nudge it over 50% again.
Wadddup man. Hbyy comment here. I tried to say a million times I think conquest is neato, just not literally a 1 to 1 of land battles. It's a third, cool, awesome game mode
@@austinkoepp1409 yeah you did, and i agreed with you land battles doesn't have to change for conquest to get better.
Land battles may have a merit in tournaments where rules and ettiquette are firm and enforced, but in quick play where there isn't a PDF of enforced rules it is far too easy to cheese and abuse them.
It will replace land battle on ladder and that's a good thing. For tournaments land battle is fine because there is a gentleman's agreement that people won't use certain tactics. I don't really consider conquest a different game mode anyway since most, if not all of the games I've played have been decided by army losses.
I don't exactly know what happened, but I remember in TWW 2 to watch so many replays on yt where the battle came to nothing, a depleted skink cohort and an almost dead tomb prince fighting it out, the balance of power bang in the middle, 20 min in the games, and I'm watching in awe not knowing who will win that crazy game. That's what I'm always looking for in LB. Yes Dom is interesting and conquest adds some health to the game, but ultimately, those games are the ones I remember.
Land battles require so many rules and gentleman's agreements to be functional that it's hard for me to enjoy, and like Turin has said on his channel it's easy for players to take advantage of the rules and delays of enforcement when going against someone trying to play in good faith. I think the Conquest timer to unlock the objective should be increased to a few minutes so that armies have time to skirmish around the map, and winning on the objective should be the last choice for victory to discourage degenerate kiting or hero hammer builds. But ideally Conquest can bring a viewer like me who's stopped watching Land Battles since the introduction of Domination back into a land battle-esque game mode, and that's what I hope it's able to do.
its easy to take advantage of no rules as well though, people should view having extra game mechanics as built in rules anyway, which can be abused, like any game mode. they are just different forms of rules
@@odmloupi Yes, but game mechanics are consistent, can be changed, and don't rely on a human's judgement. That's why I pointed out changes that could be made to help fix some of the problems outlined in the video like just clumping healing + heavy infantry on the point and winning through the timer.
@Nickelback8469 Eh, some people seem to be under the missconception that Conquest magically fixes every possibility of cheese and degenerate play.
Which is a very narrow minded and short sighted approach.
The truth is, dicks will always find ways to be dicks.
Conquest has its own share of cheese and toxicity.
And saying LB "require so many rules and gentlemans agreements to be enjoyable" is kind of insencere, I mean It's literally 3 gentlemants agreement:
1. Don't touch the white line
2. Don't camp in forest
3. Try to attack in any way shape or form.
Turin gives LB a lot of shit for some reason, but that's rly all it is.
To add to HB's video and to several people who voiced concerns in discords, I'd like some of the commentators here to consider this:
Is there a strategic reason for fighting over control of a tiny area on the centre of the map?
With conquest the answer is **always** yes: "the game tells me so, it's a win con"
and not: "I gain a tactical advantage by capturing that area of the map for x,y reasons, I'm making this decision".
That's literally a different game than land battles where illogical non tactical -tactical- decisions don't win games. As a player I feel fights over a point limit my experience of playing this masterful rts, I also dislike the game dictating for me such an important tactical decision when literally I'm the player. I won't say more, just that enjoy what we have, play games and each to their own taste!
Exactly my experience with Conquest so far. 500 points are too few, 750 would fit better.
I see Conquest as a Quick Battles only gamemode. Remember, Quick Battles Landbattles have a 20min timer. If Conquest makes a drawkiter lose, it's great. But if it's "blob long enough to win" gamemode, it's bad. Increasing the "timer" by increasing the capture points could fix that (hopefully).
But for tournaments, there is no use for Conquest. Drawkiting isn't allowed anyways.
I think if CA slows down conquest capture rate so that players can't just capture and sit on it to win the game in the first ten 10 minutes, then infantry spam would be much less of a problem and kiting can be viable again.
already now in custom battles you can set a higher number of tickets, and it's cool for doing tests to send to CA later
What about making conquest capture point eg 20 times bigger, (huge huge circle) so it make players not use the corner camping tactic (one of the goals of this mode in the first place) but it would get rid of healing blob tactic too, since elves could be still in the center of a map and able to shoot at nurgle. While kiting too much, elves would gave away the point, but it would make both side be active and i guess that was the goal.
I don't really like the concept of having to obey quiet fuzzy rules in competitive play, so I would like conquest to eventually replace Land battles, but only if we get to the point where there is only one difference to land battles.
Preventing situations where the optimal play doesn't advance the game state (aka corner camping, draw kiting etc.).
This could be achieved with winning through capture points taking a ridiculous amount of time as long as enough damage is dealed and as long as the capture point is contested, the points not ticking up.
The problem is the inherent fuzziness between cheesing and legitimate tactics-perhaps best exemplified by Tzeentch. Their mechanics encourage kiting and cycle charging to maximize barrier utility. At what point does that cross the line if it's not actually done to force a draw?
_"Conquest ISNT Replacing Land Battles... _*_on custom and tournament play"_*
Because to quote CA: _"... our future intention is to remove Land Battle from the list of Quick Battle options once this transitionary period has concluded."_
I understand that you are trying to undercut the drama but that second part seems quite important because it creates a problem further down the line: When this is fully implemented and land battles are exclusively custom, new players who don't want to start MP by playing tournaments or going on discords are going to be forced into either conquest or domination, niether of which will prepare them for land battles. And if you've spent 10 - 30 games playing say conquest, what incentive is there for you to switch to land battles instead of finding a conquest tournament to play in?
Splitting a playerbase isn't always a bad thing but TW:WH MP has a really high cost barrier to entry while not exactly having the strongest playerbase to begin with.
I agree with HB, but I would like to see Conquest replace Land Battles. With changes to timer mechanics, it can just be a better LB, imo.
So what's the communities plan B if they do fix the teething issues and then do go through with their plan? People said dom would smash land battles but dom was never anything like land battles. CA on the other hand seems to want this to be land battles 2.0 rather than a stand alone game mode, so if the numbers on their end justify it I can see original land battles being retired.
What if win-by-capture time is increased to like 20 minutes (from ~10)? Would it make it close to enough to land battles, while avoiding their main issues (i.e. draw kiting, corner camping)?
Feels like people do just want it to be land battles but with less room for bs/cheese though.
And surely tactics like you showed in this video of sticking a tanky army on the point can be made useless by just slowing down the capture point more, or maybe make it so taking ranged fire counts as the point being contested. Just make it so that the point is basically completely irrelevant unless 1 player is completely refusing to interact with the other.
Slowing down the points would just slowdown the battle.
And letting range Units contest the point by shooting would be equaly terrible, since it would result in the same cat and mouse chase we allready have.
@@davidkampmann9783 kiting is a valid strategy though? I mean fair enough if you want conquest to be a mode which punishes kiting, but I'd prefer it to just be basically identical to land battles metawise but without the cringe stuff like corner camping, or extending a match you've lost by running around with melee cavalry refusing to fight.
Thinking about it more, my ideal solution would basically be a point that captures fairly fast, but counts as contested as long as the two armies are fighting at all - ranged or melee. Capture point only matters if one player is completely refusing to fight.
@@lokii7365 I also like kiting, but my impression was that CA wanted to remove kiting (And cornercamping obviously) with this mode tbh. And punishing cornercamping or camping is just not worth it if the trade off forces me to engage with a blob. It will just be like domination metawhise and I dont get why we need another dom mode
I hate capture points as long has they don't have a reason to be there in a real battle. Even if it is a game I search for some kind of reality in my games.
Same. I know most people won't care but the random flag in the center of the map bothers people like us lol. I would actually be 100 percent happier if they changed the flag to a small landmark, different for types of maps. Like a small fountain, or pillar, or totem.
@@Sleepingdruid37 Something advantageous could be in the center for example a statue that increase winds of magic capacity and generation of gives buffs... King arthur 2 rpg/rts had a good system.
Great points. I never have been upset at the "cheese" in land battles. Personally I won't do things like corner camp, deploy fully in a forest, or have a full kite army.. because I play as if I was facing a friend IRL and wanting us both to have fun. But if my opponent does those things, I just see it as a challenge.
It really hasn't happened too much to me anyway. Maybe like 1 in 10 people use cheese in my land battle experience. But when they do, I actually enjoy trying to beat them.
Seems like with Conquest it's just different kind of cheese, meaning you'll have to take that into account when building armies (guess blob-punishing spells are mandatory). I don't like mandatory. Having 3 different game modes will make the player base of each suffer.. I get that, but I would still love for land battles and conquest to be separate options, so we can at least choose our own "cheese."
Honestly the timer is one of the big benefits for me of conquest. It's no fun watching or playing those 15-20 minute games that primarily consist of running away
I realy hate capturepoints.
When CA announced domination mode i realy liked the part where you could call in reinforcements, but i just disliked the CPs. So for me this is essentiall a mode where they removed the cool part of domination while adding the bad ones.
If i recall correctly they tried to add this into campaign fieldbattles back in rome 2 and it sucked, it removed kiting and smart terrain choices from the battles, which are allready limited in wh3 since most maps are flat terrain with tree acne😅.
Land battle + a few limited reinforcements? So you can have a bit of leeway in your build and not be stuck like "well, I guess I can't counter Dread Saurian at all".
@@emultra759 Reinforcements don't solve build roulette because it also enhances the options of overinvesting into certain strategies/units. With only balanced units there won't be much build roulette though, only in MUs where one faction has a very limited playstyle like VC - HE.
as a ladder enjoyer i couldnt be happier with conquest... for all those times i got draw kited and corner camped! fuck land battles lol
In its current form i think conquest is worse than domination, but it has potential
Idk Land Battles sisters it's not looking so well... It's probably over... They won...
its funny to think that the new game mode just punches WE and Slanesh while they are already bottom of land battles, I feel like CA just hates kite. I still want them to separate balancing of spells and abilities between MP and campaign.
i would just point out even this video doesn't actually show a game in which kite failed to work. Very few armies can take 9 minutes of arrows to the face without budging. And CA could easily just add an extra minute or two to the lockout timer if that proves to be an issue.
@@eumaies fair, the comment was mostly a shitpost, but the point is that it inherently makes mobility *less* important, meaning on factions that pay a tax across the board for things like that, they are inherently punished by a game mode that incentivizes point holding
@@dogruler543 i agree that a game mode that incentivizes point holding would do that. I do think that there are probably only a few matchups in the game though where this mode actually makes point holding relevant in the large majority of games. And if they adjust the length a bit that small percentage will quickly disappear.
The big problem with conquest mode replacing land battles is the balance for land battles is probably gona be abysmal. Like i imagine in a year or 2 every anti infantry tool is gona be buffed to make them good in dom and conquest making them broken in land battles
THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF DRAMA I VOTED FOR !!!!1!11111111!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!!!!!!!
Under ideal circumstances conquest mode is essentially a land battle very rarely there will be a grey area where a kitey build can lose when it wouldn't in land battle but I think the main difference is aesthetic honestly.
I think aesthetics are important though, land battle feels most real.
I think this is a pretty good take on the issue. I generally think this is a good thing, but it shouldn't really be an issue. Those who want to play land battles will still do so, and I figure that most Conquest armies will be about the same as land battle ones. You'll only see big differences if someone is going for a skew build designed to win on points, like the one you showed off in your video.
Land battles is doomed , gg(joke btw)
Conquest mode is a huge W in my opinion for quick play, land battles on ladder have always been a miserable experience, it also makes the scene way more approachable that doesnt require a 12 page pdf of rules to play. Conquest replacing Land battle on quick battle is the best for the health of the game in my opinion. Land battles will always have its tournament scene, but as for quick battle and your average player conquest is going to be a better experience in my opinion.
I would like to see human boy trying a conquest tournament now and then. Similarly to how he sometimes does ultra funds or 2v2 or other formats I think it would be fun to see some conquest battles on the channel
Great video, presents exactly why good game design concepts are important.
Excellent content! Thank you for posting this for us all to enjoy!
Land battles and conquest aren't and will never be able to he same thing. But for regular ladder matches, I can't see a better option.
Land battles have flaws that will always be exploited on ladder, like bringing a unit of death runners and delaying the end of a match indefinitely or force the enemy to split up their units and make them easy pickings in order to find the unspottable stalking unit.
As for blobs, they're inherently weak to artillery and Vortex spells, both of which are viable answers. Just bring purple sun instead of spirit leech and use your archers to snipe Festus instead of trying to pick off Chosen of Nurgle with them.
It's also possible CA will lower the rate of point gains further if blobs really turn out to be too powerful. They've said they'll keep developing the mode and keep an eye on the multi-player scene so I really don't think there's a reason to worry about the metagame becoming degenerate to the same extent as is the case on the land battle ladder.
I have like 4k hours of warhammer 1,2,3 and never played multiplayer, its worth it?
I really like it personally, so I would say yes
I’m cool with conquest being default
You make some excellent points
We should swap to ambush and siege battles
FFA is the way
I don't know man, Conquest is a pretty fun game. Para Bellum did a great job. I wish they'd release more Nords, but still.
All they need to do is increase the time before the point opens up to the 3-5 min mark and double the victory tickets required.
Land Battles are dead! Human Boy killed them in the parlor with the candlestick!
I don't disagree but man your background game isn't proving any points considering the wood elf player had 2 archers in melee the entries fight
yeah, if this was an attempt to "replace" land battles, it was a half assed one.. realistically, the point would need to be 4 times as big, open up after like 25 minutes, and take twice as long to capture. the idea of land battles needing a replacement was that we needed a specific way to force engagements in the LATE game where draw kiting was problematic, not a black hole to blob on for ten minutes.
In three months we're going to look at Land Battles the same way people look at old cars that didn't have seatblets and airbags. It's fing bananas how much better Conquest is. To me. Personally. Opinion and not fact. To address some of the points you brought up:
1. Go ahead and let dum dums try to blob on a point. Figuring out to counter that is more interesting to me than being kited. Now I have to make sure I have big AoE spells, or maybe artillery to pressure someone. There are a plethora of ways to punish a big dumb lumbering blob. That's more interesting to me than watching my army whittle away as it's pulled around the map by skirmish cavalry. I mean, are there any masochists out there who actually like being kited? Those were just awful experiences and fighting against that strategy was not quite on the level of passing a kidney stone, but not far behind.
2. So infantry hasn't mattered since WH2, now it matters...and we're not celebrating that? This is infantry's "put me in coach" moment. As a fellow Skaven main I thought you'd be happier about this. Screw those people riding their horses. BTW, they can still cycle charge to their abusive heart's content. It's just around a central control point.
3. Anything that will lead to the slow and painful demise of the box is a friend of mine. I'll ask the same question I did for kiting: does anyone like fighting a box? Having a game load and seeing Cathay organized in some meticulously arranged, clinically insane tetrahedron of cannons and jade warriors made me die inside. Die more. It's pretty bad in there. I played a Conquest where my dwarven opponent didn't get the memo on how the new game mode worked, just sat in a corner in their comfy little box, and lost the game while I sat at my computer eating Thin Mints and sipping on victory. Put the box in the trash, or better yet the recycling.
This meta is far superior to me, personally, than Land Battles. Land Battles were filled with more toxins than the Chernobyl Exlusion Zone, more degeneracy than the burner phone contact list of a Staten Island bookie. I had uninstalled the game, and now it is reinstalled, resurrected, and it is glorious.
Mr davidpaolino4179, what you just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that can be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Yeah I prefer land battles as well
My big hope since the launch of WH3 was to see competitive tournaments with all of the best players involved and for the last two plus years, that has not happened... the high level player community was divided between 2 game modes, with only some crossover. Conquest mode is the best hope to draw in all the best players and reunite the competitive community
L video.
s per your own test, the timer is generous enough even under most extreme circumstances to never be felt in the vast majority of battles. If gimmicky herohammer blob builds do end up being viable/oppresive, it's not a hard task to tweak the objective rules. Either way, this is 10351135x better as a default mode for TW games in general and WH specifically because one stupid WoC build being maybe oppressive in the 1.0 version pales in comparison to the entire history of quickplay shenanigans like draw kiting and corner camping, and conq SHOULD completely replace LB in quickplay immediately and then have MP balanced around that and dom in the future.
It's hilarious that the MP crowd whose complaints are usually fucking up the SP people's fun by getting stuff nerfed because it fucks up their precious meta might now torch the best attempt by CA to fix the actual multiplayer as played by most people, because it's not a perfect upgrade to playing in a walled garden with (not actually enforceable) self imposed rules.
lol, lmao even
The addition of the game mode is overall a good thing as it makes the quick battles against randos tolerable. It might eat away influx of new players to land battles over time though, it's harder to sell the necessity to learn bunch of handshake rules if there already is a mode that by and large plays the same and makes a lot of the rules obsolete through built-in mechanics.
I feel this ultimatley toward land battle. Having been a veiwer and only occasional player. Never again shall there be a huge pow wow about rules being broken which were only agreed upon. Especially vaguerys such as the attacking rules. Often the better player was detemrined by the one who could skirt around the rules the most. That just wont happen with dom or conquest which is why they are my preffered game modes to play but also wach. I wach this channel becouse its got a note of entertaining jabs and jokes that remind me of some friends i used to have. But the feild of play at the moment requires the agreed upon cunduct with by no means a steict adherence to it.
Turin noted that the balance of conquest is also such that single entities have a harder time to just win the battle at the end, as they are low capture wieght. And honeslty thats more fun for me and many others. Being cheesed by tzeech or cathay who are obeying the attacking rules will never not be the worst thing to happen and feel. So with all due respect land battle has some major issues which are genuinly not as bad in conquest. Sure at the highest level of play it may be different but i feel your looking at it as elite infrantry to good, vs elite infrantry actual have agency and a role aside bigger stat bois who get obliterated.