Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think it's already distressing that many of the games I see in batreps emulate (or seek to emulate) tournament-level play. Having a professional league would only exacerbate that problem.

In the video game world you could see this happening with League of Legends- in the beginnings of the game the "meta" was very fluid, or most people didn't even know what a meta was. As a result you would see very bizarre and interesting matchups. Then when tournaments became popular, nearly all players adopted their styles to match the big wigs. Not only that, but anyone who DIDN'T play in a "serious" fashion was harassed for throwing the game.

So even at the most casual levels of play, you couldn't play certain characters in certain roles without being flamed by your team. I don't want anything even approaching that experience to seep into my tabletop gaming.

 Colpicklejar wrote:
I think it's already distressing that many of the games I see in batreps emulate (or seek to emulate) tournament-level play. Having a professional league would only exacerbate that problem.

In the video game world you could see this happening with League of Legends- in the beginnings of the game the "meta" was very fluid, or most people didn't even know what a meta was. As a result you would see very bizarre and interesting matchups. Then when tournaments became popular, nearly all players adopted their styles to match the big wigs. Not only that, but anyone who DIDN'T play in a "serious" fashion was harassed for throwing the game.

So even at the most casual levels of play, you couldn't play certain characters in certain roles without being flamed by your team. I don't want anything even approaching that experience to seep into my tabletop gaming.

If Magic has taught me anything, it is that in real life, rather than some video game thing, that would absolutely not happen. Some people will want to play tournament style, some people won't, and if there was an increase in visibility and popularity in wargaming to go along with this, you'd have no problem finding players who want to play the same way you do.

I don't think people optimizing their list would be an issue if the tools they had to work with were balanced properly. Highly intelligent people trying to optimize and break the lists to achieve maximum power allows you to tune the game. Competitive games like Dota 2 are really well balanced. If something is too good, take advantage of it while you can, it won't be next patch.

A lot of table top stuff isn't play tested nearly enough to get the game to where it should be and erratas take a long time to sort out. It might be worth running a cash prize tournament scene just to get proper play testing that will keep the game up to scratch. I mean I assume that having extensively play tested rules, in the real metagame by top level strategists and tacticians would make the game more balanced and therefore more fun for even non competitive players. Even if you're a casual beer and pretzels gamer you still want a well tested and balanced game. If anything it would narrow the effectiveness between optimized lists and non optimized lists. Every time a GW codex or army book comes out people can basically go through the book and split unit entries into three groups: over powered must haves, average power filler, and under powered never take units. Every unit and option should be viable if used correctly.

 tomjoad wrote:

 Colpicklejar wrote:
I think it's already distressing that many of the games I see in batreps emulate (or seek to emulate) tournament-level play. Having a professional league would only exacerbate that problem.

In the video game world you could see this happening with League of Legends- in the beginnings of the game the "meta" was very fluid, or most people didn't even know what a meta was. As a result you would see very bizarre and interesting matchups. Then when tournaments became popular, nearly all players adopted their styles to match the big wigs. Not only that, but anyone who DIDN'T play in a "serious" fashion was harassed for throwing the game.

So even at the most casual levels of play, you couldn't play certain characters in certain roles without being flamed by your team. I don't want anything even approaching that experience to seep into my tabletop gaming.

If Magic has taught me anything, it is that in real life, rather than some video game thing, that would absolutely not happen. Some people will want to play tournament style, some people won't, and if there was an increase in visibility and popularity in wargaming to go along with this, you'd have no problem finding players who want to play the same way you do.

And if my experience in 40K means anything.... it does happen.

 Easy E wrote:
And if my experience in 40K means anything.... it does happen.

That specifically does not apply or matter. We 're talking about two games with large professional or semi-professional circuits (LoL and Magic). If LoL's pro circuit has driven out casual play (which may or my not be true even; I don't know jack about computer gaming), I am saying that that is because of how anonymous online interactions, NOT because of the high level play that many people engage in.

In Magic, which also has a pro circuit, the casual game has, if anything, been reinforced and strengthened by the high level tournament play. I firmly believe that, for reasons that I've already mentioned, this is also what would happen in X-Wing or 40K if tournament gaming was brought to a high level, rather than being the garbage waste of time that it currently is.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah, I think any miniature company that runs a "protour" is a great thing and I'm sure it helps their company, but it still is a small field.

I'm not sure on the numbers of MTG players currently maybe 50,000??

I mean how many 40k players are in the US right now?

100k?

You really think 40k has twice the playerbase of MTG?

I can't find any citations, but the estimates I saw were that there are ~2 million active Magic players worldwide (including casual players and all). and that in 2011 there were ~450,000 active DCI accounts (which would be tournament players only, although many of these will be mainly-casual players who attend maybe one or two tournaments/year).

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah, I think any miniature company that runs a "protour" is a great thing and I'm sure it helps their company, but it still is a small field.

I'm not sure on the numbers of MTG players currently maybe 50,000??

I mean how many 40k players are in the US right now?

100k?

You really think 40k has twice the playerbase of MTG?

Yeah, it'll be super weird if there are more 40k players than M:tG. M:tG, by my estimates, has at least a 5 gakload more players than 40k.

 Colpicklejar wrote:
In the video game world you could see this happening with League of Legends- in the beginnings of the game the "meta" was very fluid, or most people didn't even know what a meta was. As a result you would see very bizarre and interesting matchups.

This is basically the case for all games, though. In the early days people are still trying to figure out the system so you see a giant potpourri of strategies and/or builds, and then people start to narrow down the more optimal choices. Eventually a game settles into its particular meta rut, which then sometimes gets shaken by either changes/updates or someone meta bending by taking advantage of the default assumptions about how the game "should" work, which then eventually settles into another rut and the cycle continues.

Then when tournaments became popular, nearly all players adopted their styles to match the big wigs. Not only that, but anyone who DIDN'T play in a "serious" fashion was harassed for throwing the game.

So even at the most casual levels of play, you couldn't play certain characters in certain roles without being flamed by your team. I don't want anything even approaching that experience to seep into my tabletop gaming.

LoL is a bit different though, since it's a game where one of your teammates can screw up so badly early on that you basically lose the game but you have no choice but to play out the last 20-40 minutes while you await your inevitable thrashing. I played LoL before it was super serious tournament business (before the first ranking season, IIRC) and even in the hazy days of junglers being a "sometimes" choice and long before the 1 top/1 mid/2 bottom setup was ingrained deeply into the playerbase's collective consciousness there was a limited tolerance at best for being a special snowflake. 1v1 games don't have that same peer pressure, so you can try to be a meta bender without people who are relying on your performance to win blowing a gasket.