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.

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:it sort of looks like you are saying here that the real world (FoW WW2) is not as "rich" a bakground as 40k. Which would be sort of sad

Well, he is kind of right!

FoW so far only covers 5 years of human history in a very small part of one planet.

40K has 25+ years of history spanning thousands of diferent planets and races. So it does have a richer backgroud.

Of course FoW does have the advantage that no one can come and say: "You know all those things that supposedly Hitler did? Yeah, turns out that he actually died 15 years before and all that stuff was done by his bastard offspring."

Oh, now you made me sad on yout behalf as well...I am not a big WW2 buff, but even from the reading I have done of those five years is such a amazingly rich and varied historical period - for one, there is an absurd amount of reality-stranger-than-fiction "fluff" in it (classical example: http://www.badassoftheweek.com/churchill.html) in it that it dwarfs the 40k universe down to pea size.

Some of the best fictional characters find their roots in reality. And in many cases, such fictional characters are actually watered down from their real-life roots so as to be more believable.

Yep. I mean, I am a BIG high medieval buff, and the relatively meager sources we have from that european period is also easily capable of putting the collected output of GW (or any other company) creativity to shame.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:Good game balance helps competitive players and either has no impact on, or helps, casual players. There is no reason to not want a well balanced game.

And what makes you think so? Have you ever played a balanced game? If there is balance, casual and competitive players alike can enjoy a more fair game where what you do matters more than what army you happen to like! All armies should have a fair chance of beating any other army in the game and not just under very special circumstances, or would this take the fun out of gaming for you?

What?

Fafnir wrote:Still, a balanced game gives you more options than an unbalanced one. Unbalanced games quickly become overcentralized, limiting viable options to a very small selection. A truly balanced game makes all of the available options viable, allowing for more styles of play.

That depends on how you define balance.

Certain fighting games for example are unbalanced, but it still has variety because certain characters that are weak to the average player are very powerful to a player who has mastered all their moves, while the one that is powerful to the average player has a plateau that is reached because of the limitaitons of the character.

ph34r wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:Good game balance helps competitive players and either has no impact on, or helps, casual players. There is no reason to not want a well balanced game.

And what makes you think so? Have you ever played a balanced game? If there is balance, casual and competitive players alike can enjoy a more fair game where what you do matters more than what army you happen to like! All armies should have a fair chance of beating any other army in the game and not just under very special circumstances, or would this take the fun out of gaming for you?

What?

Don't ask, you'll spoil the riddle.

Melissia wrote:Certain fighting games for example are unbalanced, but it still has variety because certain characters that are weak to the average player are very powerful to a player who has mastered all their moves, while the one that is powerful to the average player has a plateau that is reached because of the limitaitons of the character.

That is unbalanced?

Really?

Having a character/army that is hard to play correctly do better when played correctly is not unbalanced. . .

That is sort of the point of balance, outside of simple mirror matches.

ph34r wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:Good game balance helps competitive players and either has no impact on, or helps, casual players. There is no reason to not want a well balanced game.

And what makes you think so? Have you ever played a balanced game? If there is balance, casual and competitive players alike can enjoy a more fair game where what you do matters more than what army you happen to like! All armies should have a fair chance of beating any other army in the game and not just under very special circumstances, or would this take the fun out of gaming for you?

What?

You'll have to be more specific than that.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

ph34r wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:Good game balance helps competitive players and either has no impact on, or helps, casual players. There is no reason to not want a well balanced game.

And what makes you think so? Have you ever played a balanced game? If there is balance, casual and competitive players alike can enjoy a more fair game where what you do matters more than what army you happen to like! All armies should have a fair chance of beating any other army in the game and not just under very special circumstances, or would this take the fun out of gaming for you?

What?

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Maybe you should re-read my post. I don't think it says what you think it says.

I am pro game balance.

kirsanth wrote:

Melissia wrote:Certain fighting games for example are unbalanced, but it still has variety because certain characters that are weak to the average player are very powerful to a player who has mastered all their moves, while the one that is powerful to the average player has a plateau that is reached because of the limitaitons of the character.

That is unbalanced?

Yes. because in the beginner skill level, a certain group of characters dominates, while in the competitive skill level, a different group of characters dominate, while in the upper level, usually one or two dominate.

Look at the Dark Eldar range for a 40k example. It's not balanced-- it's very hard for newcomers to use, but can kick total ass in the hands of a skilled player.

ph34r wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

ph34r wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:Good game balance helps competitive players and either has no impact on, or helps, casual players. There is no reason to not want a well balanced game.

And what makes you think so? Have you ever played a balanced game? If there is balance, casual and competitive players alike can enjoy a more fair game where what you do matters more than what army you happen to like! All armies should have a fair chance of beating any other army in the game and not just under very special circumstances, or would this take the fun out of gaming for you?

What?

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Maybe you should re-read my post. I don't think it says what you think it says.

I am pro game balance.

Hahaha! How terribly akward . That was really dumb of me. Well there aren't much to say is there... I read "There is no reason to want a well balanced game", (several times I might add ) and left out the "not" after "reason to"... I'm really sorry and feel really embarrassed!

Melissia wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Still, a balanced game gives you more options than an unbalanced one. Unbalanced games quickly become overcentralized, limiting viable options to a very small selection. A truly balanced game makes all of the available options viable, allowing for more styles of play.

That depends on how you define balance.

Certain fighting games for example are unbalanced, but it still has variety because certain characters that are weak to the average player are very powerful to a player who has mastered all their moves, while the one that is powerful to the average player has a plateau that is reached because of the limitaitons of the character.

When talking about balance, I'm always concerned with the highest known level of play.

Fafnir wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Still, a balanced game gives you more options than an unbalanced one. Unbalanced games quickly become overcentralized, limiting viable options to a very small selection. A truly balanced game makes all of the available options viable, allowing for more styles of play.

That depends on how you define balance.

Certain fighting games for example are unbalanced, but it still has variety because certain characters that are weak to the average player are very powerful to a player who has mastered all their moves, while the one that is powerful to the average player has a plateau that is reached because of the limitaitons of the character.

When talking about balance, I'm always concerned with the highest known level of play.

I'm concerned with ALL levels of play. Otherwise it's not balanced.

I agree with Melissa here, however I can't see why a game that is balanced in the "highest level of play" (it would be interesting to know what you mean by this exactly Fafnir) wouldn't be balanced in all levels of play.

I'm going to use a fighting game as an analogy, since it's easier to explain it this way.

Guilty Gear ^Core

Now, the top tier character, Eddie can be incredibly brutal at high level play. However, he's also one of, if not the hardest character to master at a competitive level in the game. Using him properly relies on controlling his shadow effectively, which involves essentially learning how to play two characters at once. Keeping the shadow out of enemy range, learning how to react to hit-confirms, and learning just how to combo with the shadow is difficult enough.
Because of this, at lower levels of play, it's very easy for an Eddie player to become overwhelmed with everything thrown at them (as I've discussed, just controlling him can be very difficult at times, throwing together abare comboes is even more difficult).

On the other hand, on the low tier end (it's worth keeping in mind that the Guilty Gear franchise is incredibly well balanced, and the difference between tiers is fairly small at higher levels of play), there's Ky. Ky's a very easy character to learn in comparison to the rest of the cast, thanks to his easy commands, his straight forward attacks, long range, and well balanced stats. At lower levels of play, this allows him to do very well, but at higher levels, his moveset becomes more predictable and his punishment options just don't have as much damage potential as other characters (there are other reasons, but going in to every one of them would make this post go on for ages).

This is where the disparity between low and high level play begins to emerge. Ky's a low tier character in the game, but he's not in a bad place either, since the game itself is very well balanced at high level play. Likewise, Eddie's low level play can be terrible at times, just because of his massive skill ceiling. If you buff Eddie to make him better at low level play, you only make him dominate the entire competitive metagame to an absurd degree, making him blatantly overpowered. And if you nerf Ky to make up for how easy he is to play at lower levels, you only make him even worse than he already is.
Furthermore, although you could take steps to make Eddie easier to play (however I don't see how, you end up taking away what makes Eddie Eddie that way, but for argument's sake...), but in doing so, assuming no changes are made to his potential potency, he becomes a simpler character and reduces the depth of his gameplay, making for a more boring game.

Ultimately, low level play is less concerned with the overall balance than high level play. Additionally, games focused towards higher-end play tend to have longer life spans than more shallow games.

For example, compare Smash Bros Melee to Brawl. Melee is a far deeper game with better balance. It has had a strong competitive community for around 10 years.
Brawl, on the other hand, built around much shallower mechanics, has a much smaller competitive community that has slowly been dying off since the game's release.

In my local group, we all have the capacity to use cutthroat mega-competitive lists (i.e. mech IG, venomspam, missilewolves, battlewagon rush etc), but we don't. We decided fairly early on that it's more fun to play (most of the time) with a wide variety of different units. So that's what we do: we play semi-competitive armies against each other that are lots of fun to paint/play and include some of our personal favorite units. Pretty much all the games we play are close-fought and tactical, and we rarely/never have games where the balance of lists heavily favors one side.

Then, about once a month, we decide we feel like a real hard-as-nails competitive game. We bring all the brutality we can muster, and have an optional mini-tourney. It's really good fun as (IMHO) we've found a balance.

So in short, I don't pit the two against each other. I embrace both in a balance that I and my local gaming group think is most enjoyable.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

And about these "heroic" people that field units to emulate certain events, and really "suffer for the art", what stops them from doing that in an balanced game? Unless the whole point with the army is to loose horribly and take some pride in doing so for being true to the fluff, I don't get how it couldn't be done within a balanced game system where you can field the same units? And if you still want to loose or have the game going in a special direction, apply special scenario rules instead! Wouldn't that be a somewhat better option for everyone?

If you read my post I actually DID mention scenario play often being a motivation to field armies that mathhammer devotees would consider an inefficient use of points.

My post was also about two toal different approaches to the game and the fact that some I have encountered can't fathom why people would choose to play a scenario/game that is unbalanced or that isnt being played with optimized armies. Nothing in my post was about seeking out competative play with a subpar army as a way to "suffer for the art". maybe reread what I posted.

Ok, I want to try and answer your original question. This competitive vs. casual is not a dichotomy, it is a binary. It is made out to seem as if competitive can never meet casual play. The truth is that they are not actually at either end of the spectrum, they are single terms that can be used in a continuous discourse on a single subject without seeming redundant. In Warhammer it seems to depend on attitude of engagement. I can competitively engage in a casual event (e.g. try my hardest to beat my opponent at my house on a sunday afternoon), I can casually compete in a competitive event (e.g. lightheartedly accept any fate I am given in a tournament). But even this attitude of the word is still a bit weak. What needs to be realized is that casual and competitive are always interacting, meeting, melding and it is based purely on one's perception of events. The only way that we can have an objective truth about this discourse is to pick an object (such as what competitive and casual play are) and use that as the definition of each term. But good luck getting dakka to agree on something like that.

Fafnir wrote:Brawl, on the other hand, built around much shallower mechanics, has a much smaller competitive community that has slowly been dying off since the game's release.

I wouldn't call endless fox vs fox battles "deep".

Melissia wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Brawl, on the other hand, built around much shallower mechanics, has a much smaller competitive community that has slowly been dying off since the game's release.

I wouldn't call endless fox vs fox battles "deep".

Or marth vs marth. But I will say that super smash bros has a pretty high "skill ceiling", as do most fighting games. Split second reactions and muscle memory movements can always be honed slightly more.

Melissia wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Brawl, on the other hand, built around much shallower mechanics, has a much smaller competitive community that has slowly been dying off since the game's release.

I wouldn't call endless fox vs fox battles "deep".

I take it you have no grasp of the competitive metagame in Melee. Fox may be the best character in the game, but at least half of the cast can be used competitive (or, if you're Gimpyfish, even bottom tier characters become useful...).

Also, Fox and Falco are extremely technical characters. As someone who mains Peach, capitalizing on their mistakes is incredibly easy.

Grey Knight Luke wrote:What needs to be realized is that casual and competitive are always interacting, meeting, melding and it is based purely on one's perception of events. The only way that we can have an objective truth about this discourse is to pick an object (such as what competitive and casual play are) and use that as the definition of each term. But good luck getting dakka to agree on something like that.

I believe i agree with most of this. To define competitive and casual play separately would be impossible and unnecessary IMO since both are a part of each other as approaches to gaming.

HI folks.
I belive the games with a heavy strategic focus, (force composition), and limited in game tactics , suffer more from imbalance issues than games with heavier tactical focus.

As the tactical interaction grows with experiance in a way strategic elements can not.

If you have a game witha heavy strategic focus , it often has to 'script' in game inter actions with 'special rules'.

And these game that rely heavily on special rules, often artificialy inflict limited use and operational effectivness levels , which limit game play for players of all levels.