Switch Theme:

Do You Expect 40k To Be Balanced?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 greatbigtree wrote:
We’re playing missions out of the rulebook. *shrug* We’ve played a couple 500 point games, a few 1000 point games, and we’re playing 1500 points lately... which will probably be our normal. They play quick, and force tough choices in list building.


Aight, once your meta evolves, you might be seeing some different results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Eldarain wrote:
It can be a lot better. We all see the leaks each time and within minutes have identified the feth ups and what's good (underpriced, OP) and what's bad (niche, overpriced, random) Goonhammer etc have articles up swiftly breaking it down.

Why do these threads always go this way?

"Perfect is impossible so don't try"
"You'd have to strip out all the options and flavour so don't try"
"If you want balance play chess"
"lol even chess isn't balanced so don't try"

It's not wrong to expect better, it's just sad there are so many legions of people giving them no reason to bother.


It's because they don't want it to be balanced. There are so many people involved in 40k who win games by exploited GW's poorly balanced mess, and they're afraid that if that goes away they won't be able to win games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/10 21:58:44


 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

I actually think it's because GW can do no wrong in the minds of these people.
You get the same attitude regardless of what GW does. "It's perfect, it's impossible to achieve better, worth every penny!".
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

It will never be - as in every army having 50% win/lose ratio. However, GW has to strive for it at every moment.

The only way to do that is to focus on armies lacking competitiveness. Giving new toys for Marines every year certainly isn't the correct path.

40k, AI & BFG: / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / MCP: X-Force, X-Men

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actually think it's because GW can do no wrong in the minds of these people.
You get the same attitude regardless of what GW does. "It's perfect, it's impossible to achieve better, worth every penny!".


It's a pity because it makes when GW *does* do cool stuff absolutely meaningless. Like the KT Rogue Trader boxed set - those minis were amazing.
   
Made in ie
[DCM]
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Dublin

They're...cleverly selective when it comes to balance. On one hand there's attempts to address issues and make the game more fun. On the other we get new models with stats rules that are so imbalanced that it us clearly intentional.

Its not just new models either. Do you remember for 6th ed (I think) when dreadnoughts gotit reduced from 3 to 2 attacks, making them fairly unviable.Trading sites were inundated with unwanted dreads. Then barely more than a year later, dreads get bumped up to 4 attacks! And they're flying off the shelves again.

As much as this approach disencourages me as a customer, I don't begrudge them for doing so. Its clever marketing, and it keeps the game going. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who feel compelled to fork out big cash every year replacing nerfed units.

I let the dogs out 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 thegreatchimp wrote:
They're...cleverly selective when it comes to balance. On one hand there's attempts to address issues and make the game more fun. On the other we get new models with stats rules that are so imbalanced that it us clearly intentional.

.


I think this is a balancing factor only if someone plays multiple armies or multiple games. If your army is not fun to play with, and GW doesn't give it new models, then the fact that they are making new stuff for other factions doesn't help much. In fact it may generate resentment, like in the case of marines.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Its not just new models either. Do you remember for 6th ed (I think) when dreadnoughts gotit reduced from 3 to 2 attacks, making them fairly unviable.Trading sites were inundated with unwanted dreads. Then barely more than a year later, dreads get bumped up to 4 attacks! And they're flying off the shelves again.


Sort of.
1st: I only played in the early 1/2 of 6th & then mostly using Khorne demons so I paid little attention to SM. and then I played no 7th.
2nd: I've always loved dreads. The boxy dread is one of my favorite 40k pieces. And ages ago in WD there was a story about 9 dreads holding the field. Sadly fielding 9 dreads in 3rd wasn't a legal option at that time. Still inspired though.... Building it though was always on the back burner as there's little reason to build a force that can't be played.... But maybe, one day....

And lo & behold, then came that one summer at GenCon where I was able to pick up all the used dreads I could ever want - metal, plastic, even a few of the early boxy FW resins + almost any arms I wanted for pennies on the dollar. I'm talking complete dreads for $10....
Had no idea what caused that, didn't care, didn't question it. Just stocked up. All my SM armies now had a few dreads & I could build my {still unplayable} 9 dread army as a hobby project & not waste too much $.

When I returned in 8th I was quite pleased to see the rules had shifted enough to allow me to put nothing but dreads on the table.
Oh, and while I was away FW had been very busy designing new dreads to siphon off my $.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
As much as this approach disencourages me as a customer, I don't begrudge them for doing so. Its clever marketing, and it keeps the game going. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who feel compelled to fork out big cash every year replacing nerfed units.


I don't. If they had a well rounded collection & weren't perpetually selling things off to buy the new hottness, just to scrap that on the next pendulum swing, they could just rotate what they play with & have only had to pay once.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/11 13:32:11


 
   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

Maybe I am a hoarder but I have only ever regretted selling models.

   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

I often regret selling models, but then I remember why I sold them in the first place.
I don't have the space to keep them. Lord knows I don't have enough space to keep the models I'm currently using.
Additionally, I wouldn't want to use the models anyway. They're from a time where I was much worse at building and painting than I am now, I don't like what I did anymore.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

ccs wrote:
 thegreatchimp wrote:

Its not just new models either. Do you remember for 6th ed (I think) when dreadnoughts gotit reduced from 3 to 2 attacks, making them fairly unviable.Trading sites were inundated with unwanted dreads. Then barely more than a year later, dreads get bumped up to 4 attacks! And they're flying off the shelves again.


Sort of.
1st: I only played in the early 1/2 of 6th & then mostly using Khorne demons so I paid little attention to SM. and then I played no 7th.
2nd: I've always loved dreads. The boxy dread is one of my favorite 40k pieces. And ages ago in WD there was a story about 9 dreads holding the field. Sadly fielding 9 dreads in 3rd wasn't a legal option at that time. Still inspired though.... Building it though was always on the back burner as there's little reason to build a force that can't be played.... But maybe, one day....

And lo & behold, then came that one summer at GenCon where I was able to pick up all the used dreads I could ever want - metal, plastic, even a few of the early boxy FW resins + almost any arms I wanted for pennies on the dollar. I'm talking complete dreads for $10....
Had no idea what caused that, didn't care, didn't question it. Just stocked up. All my SM armies now had a few dreads & I could build my {still unplayable} 9 dread army as a hobby project & not waste too much $.

When I returned in 8th I was quite pleased to see the rules had shifted enough to allow me to put nothing but dreads on the table.
Oh, and while I was away FW had been very busy designing new dreads to siphon my $ away.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
As much as this approach disencourages me as a customer, I don't begrudge them for doing so. Its clever marketing, and it keeps the game going. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who feel compelled to fork out big cash every year replacing nerfed units.


I don't. If they had a well rounded collection & weren't perpetually selling things off to buy the new hottness, just to scrap that on the next pendulum swing, they could just rotate what they play with & have only had to pay once.



Oh i feel you there. The entire reason i kept my salamanders successors when i reduced the number of armies i had for my 28mm 40K stuff was because of dreads. in 5th you had the option to take them as elites and heavies if you had a master of the forge in an HQ slot. FW made it even better with the badab war supplement allowing dread talons (3 ironclads or seige dreads) to be taken as a troops slot for every regular tac marine/scout troop slot you filled. so technically if you were playing a big enough points game that would be 3X3 dread talons as troops with 3 more in elites and 3 in heavies for a gran total of 15 with a master of the forge with the old FOC chart.

Even to this day since our group still plays 5th you will always see my ironclad dread talon in my army.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 aphyon wrote:
ccs wrote:
 thegreatchimp wrote:

Its not just new models either. Do you remember for 6th ed (I think) when dreadnoughts gotit reduced from 3 to 2 attacks, making them fairly unviable.Trading sites were inundated with unwanted dreads. Then barely more than a year later, dreads get bumped up to 4 attacks! And they're flying off the shelves again.


Sort of.
1st: I only played in the early 1/2 of 6th & then mostly using Khorne demons so I paid little attention to SM. and then I played no 7th.
2nd: I've always loved dreads. The boxy dread is one of my favorite 40k pieces. And ages ago in WD there was a story about 9 dreads holding the field. Sadly fielding 9 dreads in 3rd wasn't a legal option at that time. Still inspired though.... Building it though was always on the back burner as there's little reason to build a force that can't be played.... But maybe, one day....

And lo & behold, then came that one summer at GenCon where I was able to pick up all the used dreads I could ever want - metal, plastic, even a few of the early boxy FW resins + almost any arms I wanted for pennies on the dollar. I'm talking complete dreads for $10....
Had no idea what caused that, didn't care, didn't question it. Just stocked up. All my SM armies now had a few dreads & I could build my {still unplayable} 9 dread army as a hobby project & not waste too much $.

When I returned in 8th I was quite pleased to see the rules had shifted enough to allow me to put nothing but dreads on the table.
Oh, and while I was away FW had been very busy designing new dreads to siphon my $ away.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
As much as this approach disencourages me as a customer, I don't begrudge them for doing so. Its clever marketing, and it keeps the game going. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who feel compelled to fork out big cash every year replacing nerfed units.


I don't. If they had a well rounded collection & weren't perpetually selling things off to buy the new hottness, just to scrap that on the next pendulum swing, they could just rotate what they play with & have only had to pay once.



Oh i feel you there. The entire reason i kept my salamanders successors when i reduced the number of armies i had for my 28mm 40K stuff was because of dreads. in 5th you had the option to take them as elites and heavies if you had a master of the forge in an HQ slot. FW made it even better with the badab war supplement allowing dread talons (3 ironclads or seige dreads) to be taken as a troops slot for every regular tac marine/scout troop slot you filled. so technically if you were playing a big enough points game that would be 3X3 dread talons as troops with 3 more in elites and 3 in heavies for a gran total of 15 with a master of the forge with the old FOC chart.

Even to this day since our group still plays 5th you will always see my ironclad dread talon in my army.


Yeah, but I wanted nothing but dreads in my list.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Of course, this can be muddied if there are issues in the game that frustrate people that have nothing to do with balance (for example, unintuitive/unclear rules or armies feeling like a chore to play


This has definitely not helped over the years. In past editions (especially 7th) I often found myself either moving a lot, or at least travelling a lot, and what yo saw was people largely playing totally different versions of 40k depending on their interpretation of the rules and what armies existed in the local meta. This was true to the point that, in some cases, the players had been doing it for so long, they actually forgot that some of their "house rules" were not actually part of the main rules. SO they would feel the game was well balanced, but completely neglect to mention the fact that it was balanced due to extra effort on their part.

For pickup games 40% winrate isn't that bad when it is random matchups.


Depends. It actually could be horrific, or it could actually be amazing. We don't have the info needed to make the call, but generally speaking, for pickup games, you would want to see at least a slightly higher percentage.

Why do people keep believing that GW makes “oopsies” in their rules?

Because it makes the players feel smart?


Free FAQs sort of demonstrate the "oopsies" .... what a weird post ... You think they deliberately kept the same copy/paste error through three separate books just so they could "trick us" into a free FAQ? I mean if so then yeah, they've got us right where they want us ... lol

I will cut it out. Haha. It just pains me to see the apologist attitude when GW is so hostile towards the health/balance of the game and its players.


Yeah, the apologists are annoying but easily ignored. The folks on the other side of the fence (GW is evil, everything they do is evil, and if you bought that new model you fell right into their devious trap) are just as bad though. Take the whole "GW makes rules to sell models thing. The theory that, every release is made OP on purpose because it sells the model. Now, take that reasoning and explain to me, Reivers, the Canoptek Reanimator, Ophydian Destroyers, Repulsors, the Hexmark, etc. The theory doesn't hold up does it?

I can go on all day with examples. For every example of a "OP model release" I can likely give you two flops. Two releases that were outright terrible at release. Some of which, never got better ...

Does GW engage in anti-consumer behavior? Sometimes. Is it always because they are evil and conspiratorial? Nope. Most of the time it is 100% incompetence. I'm fine with calling them out when they've clearly done something dirty (like the special edition IG Sarge model that was released during quarantine), but if you really think everything they do is some sort of evil conspiracy, or deliberate anti-consumer practice, please seek help.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Strg Alt wrote:
40K can't be properly balanced even if you take the best rules designer of the planet and set him to work.
The only instance when two armies are balanced is when there are identical units on both sides and both forces have the same objectives.
Terrain needs to be addressed too. Structures would need to be placed in a symmetrical fashion on each board side.

Does this sounds like fun? Maybe for a few matches but it would become tedious soon.


Thats a bold claim when you consider all the other similar games that manage to have better balance than 40k. We're not asking for perfect 50% winrate on any list possible when we ask for balance.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Hecaton wrote:
If it's your subjective experience, then it's mostly meaningless without numbers to back it up. Above you said that "I win about 40% of my games" which is an argument that rests on objective evidence, so even you acknowledge that subjective "feelings" aren't the be-all end-all. Of course, it's a *bad* numbers-based argument, because it's relying on one player, but it's there.

Here's an example of subjective balance trumping objective balance:

In League of Legends champions classes as assassins are purposefully held at a sub 50% win-rate because people find them frustrating to deal with. Meanwhile less annoying units like tanks and enchanters are allowed to divide that share of win-rate among themselves because people don't find them annoying even when they are considerably over tuned. Should Riot force everything to 50-50 balance even if it ruins the play experience for their players?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Thats a bold claim when you consider all the other similar games that manage to have better balance than 40k. We're not asking for perfect 50% winrate on any list possible when we ask for balance.

See my reply to Hecaton for why even 'perfect' balance can be imperfect for a game's player base. There's every chance that more players would dislike 40k if it were balanced as close to 50-50 as possible than currently dislike the imperfect balance we currently have.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/11 17:13:25


 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Canadian 5th wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
If it's your subjective experience, then it's mostly meaningless without numbers to back it up. Above you said that "I win about 40% of my games" which is an argument that rests on objective evidence, so even you acknowledge that subjective "feelings" aren't the be-all end-all. Of course, it's a *bad* numbers-based argument, because it's relying on one player, but it's there.

Here's an example of subjective balance trumping objective balance:

In League of Legends champions classes as assassins are purposefully held at a sub 50% win-rate because people find them frustrating to deal with. Meanwhile less annoying units like tanks and enchanters are allowed to divide that share of win-rate among themselves because people don't find them annoying even when they are considerably over tuned. Should Riot force everything to 50-50 balance even if it ruins the play experience for their players?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Thats a bold claim when you consider all the other similar games that manage to have better balance than 40k. We're not asking for perfect 50% winrate on any list possible when we ask for balance.

See my reply to Hecaton for why even 'perfect' balance can be imperfect for a game's player base. There's every chance that more players would dislike 40k if it were balanced as close to 50-50 as possible than currently dislike the imperfect balance we currently have.


i'm not asking for a perfect 50% tho. Thats litterally what i wrote in the comment you responded to.
To me if it was lets say 45-55, i'd consider 40k balanced enough (and thats less balanced than your LoL example).
The fact that some factions right now have sub-40% winrate and that others get to enjoy 60%+ is a problem.

Oh, i just realised who i was responding to. I'll stop interacting any further but i'll leave this answer up.

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i'm not asking for a perfect 50% tho. Thats litterally what i wrote in the comment you responded to.
To me if it was lets say 45-55, i'd consider 40k balanced enough (and thats less balanced than your LoL example).
The fact that some factions right now have sub-40% winrate and that others get to enjoy 60%+ is a problem.

Oh, i just realised who i was responding to. I'll stop interacting any further but i'll leave this answer up.

How do you know what the current post-FAQ win rate for Tau will be? They literally just did a fresh balance pass on the game and everybody is acting like nothing will change.
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

Because nothing much will change, especially for Tau, they didn't change substantially at all.
The biggest changes I've seen is the slight bump in Eradicator pricing and Inquisitonal Acolytes get special weapons for free (because even FAQs need FAQs).
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because nothing much will change, especially for Tau, they didn't change substantially at all.
The biggest changes I've seen is the slight bump in Eradicator pricing and Inquisitonal Acolytes get special weapons for free (because even FAQs need FAQs).

I'd say the changes designed to level off first turn advantage are the biggest changes. Being able to Fire and fade into transports also has the potential to be huge.

Tau got a couple of buffs to their best units, it won't be a huge change but it's dishonest to pretend that Tau aren't at least a little better than they were before.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Because nothing much will change, especially for Tau, they didn't change substantially at all.
The biggest changes I've seen is the slight bump in Eradicator pricing and Inquisitonal Acolytes get special weapons for free (because even FAQs need FAQs).


I mean, they could have nailed the points absolutely perfectly, and I still think Tau would be struggling honestly. 9th has been extremely unkind to a handful of armies and Tau is chief among them imo. Unfortunately, for these armies, I don't think anything short of a new codex that significantly revamps them with 9th in mind is going to change anything.

Having played against Tau a lot prior to this update, I don't see the issues Tau have as being anywhere near fixed via the update.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Canadian 5th wrote:

Here's an example of subjective balance trumping objective balance:

In League of Legends champions classes as assassins are purposefully held at a sub 50% win-rate because people find them frustrating to deal with. Meanwhile less annoying units like tanks and enchanters are allowed to divide that share of win-rate among themselves because people don't find them annoying even when they are considerably over tuned. Should Riot force everything to 50-50 balance even if it ruins the play experience for their players?


Riot isn't actually a good example for moral game balancing; they do scheisty gak all the time to keep their new heroes favorable for microtransaction reasons. Magic has been chipping away at its balance to encourage high dollar value creatures and planeswalkers, using the excuse of people finding control "unsatisfying." In any case, 40k is not LoL. If you played it you might figure that out.

I find that attitude scrubby and selfish. If someone only finds things satisfying when they have an unfair chance to win, then it's unethical to indulge them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

See my reply to Hecaton for why even 'perfect' balance can be imperfect for a game's player base. There's every chance that more players would dislike 40k if it were balanced as close to 50-50 as possible than currently dislike the imperfect balance we currently have.


Your reply doesn't really hold water.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Canadian 5th wrote:

Here's an example of subjective balance trumping objective balance:

In League of Legends champions classes as assassins are purposefully held at a sub 50% win-rate because people find them frustrating to deal with. Meanwhile less annoying units like tanks and enchanters are allowed to divide that share of win-rate among themselves because people don't find them annoying even when they are considerably over tuned. Should Riot force everything to 50-50 balance even if it ruins the play experience for their players?


As you and I have previously agreed upon (ha - at least I think it was you - maybe not?) - Videogame comparisons fall down almost instantly for a million very different, but very real reasons.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Hecaton wrote:
Riot isn't actually a good example for moral game balancing; they do scheisty gak all the time to keep their new heroes favorable for microtransaction reasons.

For one if anything is busted you can always choose to ban it. Secondly, they nerf (or buff) the new units every patch after release until they get them right. Third, how strong a new champion is depends on your skill and the MMR you're placed at, certain champions will dominate bronze but see zero play in platinum and higher, and the opposite is also true. This is why in the patch notes they denote which skill level the champion is problematic at and make changes accordingly. Fourth, they're still far more balanced than 40k and still one of the largest most played games in human history which wouldn't happen if the balance was driving people away.

Magic has been chipping away at its balance to encourage high dollar value creatures and planeswalkers, using the excuse of people finding control "unsatisfying."

They've been releasing broken cards, yes, but the balance is that you have equal access to those cards as your opponent does. Nothing prevents a mirror match.

In any case, 40k is not LoL. If you played it you might figure that out.

I have played a lot of 40k. Not having played the current edition hardly matters when I did play 8th and played heavily from 3rd to 5th.

Your reply doesn't really hold water.

You literally didn't acknowledge my argument. You attempted to handwave it away while ignoring the central theme which was there are factors beyond simple mechanical balance that you need to consider when designing and maintaining a game.

Tycho wrote:
As you and I have previously agreed upon (ha - at least I think it was you - maybe not?) - Videogame comparisons fall down almost instantly for a million very different, but very real reasons.

Video games have far greater resources at their disposal when it comes to gathering data used to balance them but the human factors such as player enjoyment and retention are going to be similar between videogames and any other kind of game. In all cases, you need to foster investment by the player and then keep balance and fun at a level where players aren't willing to walk away from their investment. This is what keeps 40k, League, MtG, and WoW running and none of them use the exact same balancing mechanics as the others.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/11 21:51:48


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Canadian 5th wrote:

For one if anything is busted you can always choose to ban it. Secondly, they nerf (or buff) the new units every patch after release until they get them right. Third, how strong a new champion is depends on your skill and the MMR you're placed at, certain champions will dominate bronze but see zero play in platinum and higher, and the opposite is also true. This is why in the patch notes they denote which skill level the champion is problematic at and make changes accordingly. Fourth, they're still far more balanced than 40k and still one of the largest most played games in human history which wouldn't happen if the balance was driving people away.


As you said yourself, imperfect balance sometimes attracts players. But anyway, like I was mentioning, in LoL heroes will come out that are OP and then they will fine-tune (read: nerf) them once the initial glut is over with.

It being more balanced than 40k is fine, it doesn't mean that it's getting there via a good method.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

They've been releasing broken cards, yes, but the balance is that you have equal access to those cards as your opponent does. Nothing prevents a mirror match.


Same thing in 40k. You could have a single tournament viable list, and everyone would be equally able to buy it, play that faction, and bring it to tournaments. But that's unsatisfying, and doing it purposefully is generally considered to be duplicitous.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I have played a lot of 40k. Not having played the current edition hardly matters when I did play 8th and played heavily from 3rd to 5th.

No, it pretty much does.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You literally didn't acknowledge my argument. You attempted to handwave it away while ignoring the central theme which was there are factors beyond simple mechanical balance that you need to consider when designing and maintaining a game.


I talked about it in my reply to your earlier comment. Popularity of a game doesn't actually mean people are enjoying it, per se, either - plenty of games like Fortnite work on making a game that's frustrating, but that constantly dangles the carrot of a better game in front of your face. I think 40k works on this model.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Hecaton wrote:
As you said yourself, imperfect balance sometimes attracts players. But anyway, like I was mentioning, in LoL heroes will come out that are OP and then they will fine-tune (read: nerf) them once the initial glut is over with.

Please, just ignore all the champions (not heroes) that release drastically underpowered. Recent examples are Volibear, Yuumi, and Lillia as well as the word of Riot themselves:

https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/news/dev/dev-balancing-new-champions/

Same thing in 40k. You could have a single tournament viable list, and everyone would be equally able to buy it, play that faction, and bring it to tournaments. But that's unsatisfying, and doing it purposefully is generally considered to be duplicitous.

You could, but you also don't need to. Even at its worst MtG tends to have more than one list at the top of competitive play and that list changes from tournament to tournament. How do explain that if you assume each match must be a mirror match?

My suggestion to play mirror matches is an example of how literally any game can be balanced and the type of balance that MtG specifically chooses to employ based on how Hasbro wants to sell the game.

No, it pretty much does.

The general manager of a sports team doesn't play that sport anymore, are they qualified to build a team?

I talked about it in my reply to your earlier comment. Popularity of a game doesn't actually mean people are enjoying it, per se, either - plenty of games like Fortnite work on making a game that's frustrating, but that constantly dangles the carrot of a better game in front of your face. I think 40k works on this model.

You have an unsupported opinion. Please prove it or conceed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 22:33:21


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Canadian 5th wrote:

Please, just ignore all the champions (not heroes) that release drastically underpowered. Recent examples are Volibear, Yuumi, and Lillia as well as the word of Riot themselves:

https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/news/dev/dev-balancing-new-champions/


Nah. And, in the end, it's still a red herring - just because one group of players (those who play assassin-type heroes) is more mature than those who play, for example, tanks, and is less likely to table flip if they don't have an unfair advantage in the game, doesn't mean that one should try to appease the less mature ones. Squeaky wheel gets the grease can get you in bad places, because some people don't complain, they move on.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You could, but you also don't need to. Even at its worst MtG tends to have more than one list at the top of competitive play and that list changes from tournament to tournament. How do explain that if you assume each match must be a mirror match?


It's not a matter of need. It's a hypothetical point to prove your rationale is bankrupt. If everyone can just play the same deck (caw blade), then there's no reason to encourage a diversity of deck archetypes. Hell, right now GW seems to have taken it to heart, and just *really* wants everyone to play Primaris.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
My suggestion to play mirror matches is an example of how literally any game can be balanced and the type of balance that MtG specifically chooses to employ based on how Hasbro wants to sell the game.


Ok, sure. But it's meaningless to 40k, because every rational person agrees that a variety of factions makes the game more enjoyable for everyone. (No I don't have a citation. You'll just have to trust me on that one.)

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The general manager of a sports team doesn't play that sport anymore, are they qualified to build a team?


They're involved in it regularly, and moreover the skills that a player has on the field don't necessarily translate into being a good manager. Here, however, you're playing the armchair quarterback, not the manager. But it's hilarious because the stereotype of the armchair quarterback is they totally think they'd be qualified to coach or manage, just like you, and that position doesn't even exist in 40k.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You have an unsupported opinion. Please prove it or conceed.


Are you aware of Fortnite or do I have to spell it out for you?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The general manager of a sports team doesn't play that sport anymore, are they qualified to build a team?


Depending upon the team & the year there's strong evidence that answer is "No".
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




The general manager of a sports team doesn't play that sport anymore, are they qualified to build a team?


This is the crux of it though. You haven’t played since 5th. Your experience in 5th is certainly useful in certain discussions, but again, like the Skarboyz example, you don’t seem to know where that usefulness finds its limit. 9th is so functionally different from 5th that they are almost wholly different games. In you example, it would be like the general manager of a basketball team from way back when it was first invented, trying to manage a current team in the NBA. It’s just so different that there is a pretty hard limit on where your past experience can take you.

Again, it’s not that you’re automatically wrong in anything just because you don’t play, but there are times when you might do better to ask questions or clarify rather than come in with a hot take. I know you say you have read the rules, but reading is not equal to playing, as, particularly in 9th, there are a lot of little details that suddenly become much more clear after actual “on the table” experience.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 23:51:21


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Hecaton wrote:
Nah. And, in the end, it's still a red herring - just because one group of players (those who play assassin-type heroes) is more mature than those who play, for example, tanks, and is less likely to table flip if they don't have an unfair advantage in the game, doesn't mean that one should try to appease the less mature ones. Squeaky wheel gets the grease can get you in bad places, because some people don't complain, they move on.

They aren't doing it because assassin players complain less. They're doing it because they find more people enjoy the game when the class balance is done a certain way. Do you even play LoL?

If there was a style of army in 40k that could either table you by turn 2 or flame out spectacularly most players probably wouldn't want that army to be good. That's assassin's in LoL, they either snowball and carry or lose and contribute nothing.

It's not a matter of need. It's a hypothetical point to prove your rationale is bankrupt. If everyone can just play the same deck (caw blade), then there's no reason to encourage a diversity of deck archetypes. Hell, right now GW seems to have taken it to heart, and just *really* wants everyone to play Primaris.

Caw Blade? My man, that's a deck older than my last game of 40k. Maybe you should stop talking about MtG if that's the most modern deck you can name.

They're involved in it regularly, and moreover the skills that a player has on the field don't necessarily translate into being a good manager. Here, however, you're playing the armchair quarterback, not the manager. But it's hilarious because the stereotype of the armchair quarterback is they totally think they'd be qualified to coach or manage, just like you, and that position doesn't even exist in 40k.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there have been many armchair quarterbacks picked up as video scouts and analysts in recent years...

Are you aware of Fortnite or do I have to spell it out for you?

You have to prove that it has intentionally bad balance as a core gameplay element to draw players into their next match.

Tycho wrote:
This is the crux of it though. You haven’t played since 5th.
|
Ignoring that I played some games of 8th is a poor move on your part. I haven't played regularly since 5th but I have played since then.

Your experience in 5th is certainly useful in certain discussions, but again, like the Skarboyz example, you don’t seem to know where that usefulness finds its limit.

The Skarboyz limit is literally 1st at a major tournament if played correctly. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Again, it’s not that you’re automatically wrong in anything just because you don’t play, but there are times when you might do better to ask questions or clarify rather than come in with a hot take. I know you say you have read the rules, but reading is not equal to playing, as, particularly in 9th, there are a lot of little details that suddenly become much more clear after actual “on the table” experience.

That's where battle reports and tournament writeups come into the equation. I can probably analyze more games in my free time than somebody who plays does because I can spend that three hours watching a couple of games while you get in merely one.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/12 00:12:17


 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




|
Ignoring that I played some games of 8th is a poor move on your part. I haven't played regularly since 5th but I have played since then.




Upon being asked (by me) if you play, you literally said:

Canadian 5th wrote:

Not currently, though I own a large collection of Chaos Space Marine and Dark Angels models. I also have played almost every army, but this was back in 4th early 5th and that was all proxies.


8th ed where now? lol

It's all good. I think I see what you're about. Moving on.


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Tycho wrote:
8th ed where now? lol

It's all good. I think I see what you're about. Moving on.

You're really bad at reading clauses. You should probably avoid games like MtG and YGO because the placement of a comma in those games can change an entire card. What I said with that final sentence is that I played almost every army in 4th and 5th using proxied models. Nothing more and nothing less.

I've played games in 8th and have said as much on this very message board. My games of 8th weren't nearly as expansive though and mostly involved my Chaos and Dark Angeles armies versus a friend's Necron and DE armies. As such I consider my experience with older versions of the game more complete than my experience with 8th edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 00:44:20


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: